Triennial review of the Environment Agency and Natural England: Response form

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Triennial review of the Environment Agency and
Natural England: Response form
December 2012
We are interested in hearing your views on the core questions highlighted in the
discussion document. Please use this form to provide your responses to these questions.
Responses can be returned to us by email (preferable) or post. We are happy to receive
supplementary information, which can be submitted alongside your completed form. Full
details of how to submit responses are provided below.

The closing date for responses is 4th February 2013.

Please provide your response to each of the questions in the spaces provided (there are
no restrictions on length and all boxes can be expanded). None of the questions are
mandatory, however we would be grateful if you could complete all questions. Responses
should be supported by strong, relevant evidence.

How to submit your response
Please send your response (alongside any other supporting information you wish to
submit) by email (preferable) or post to:
      EA-NEreview@defra.gsi.gov.uk
      Triennial Review Team, Defra, Area 6D, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London
       SW1P 3JR

Confidentiality
Your response to this document may be made publicly available in whole or in part at the
Department’s discretion. If you do not wish all or part of your response (including your identity) to
be made public, you must state in the response which parts you wish us to keep confidential.
Where confidentiality is not requested, responses may be made available to any enquirer,
including enquirers outside the UK, or published by any means, including on the internet.

If you do not want your response - including your name, contact details and any other personal
information – to be publicly available, please say so clearly in writing when you send your
response. Please note, if your computer automatically includes a confidentiality disclaimer, that
won’t count as a confidentiality request.

Please explain why you need to keep details confidential. We will take your reasons into account if
someone asks for this information under freedom of information legislation. But, because of the
law, we cannot promise that we will always be able to keep those details confidential.

                                                                                                        1

1. Please provide your contact details
Name                             Jenny Suggate
Organisation / Company           Consumer Council for Water
Job Title                        Policy Manager
Department                       Policy
Address                          2 Hide Market
                                 West St
                                 Bristol
                                 BS2 0BH
Email                            jennifer.suggate@ccwater.org.uk
Telephone                        077 682 76290
Please tick this box if you
would like to receive
information about the
progress of the review.

2. Please provide some information about you or your organisation
 If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, please send one response per
                                   organisation.

2.1     Are you responding on behalf of an organisation?

No – I am a private individual
Yes – please answer questions 2.2 and 2.3

2.2     What is your organisation’s name?

Consumer Council for Water

2.3     What type of organisation do you work for?

Private sector
Public sector
Charity or civil society
European body/industry
Trade/business/Industry association or body
Other (please give details)                       Non-Departmental Public Body

                                                                                    2

3.    Do the functions and/or form of the Environment Agency and Natural
      England continue to be appropriate, in terms of delivering the
      Government’s ambition on the environment and flood and coastal risk
      management?

The Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England (NE) seem to be delivering the
Government's ambition on the environment and flooding.

In terms of the EA's flood management, there does seem to be better communication with
those affected, the EA has a higher public profile and is working more closely with partner
organisations before and during flooding events. However, we are aware that flooding is stilll
being experienced by many communities, and more work is needed to resolve flooding.

We are satisfied with the approach that the EA is taking towards catchment management
schemes since these can involve cheaper, more sustainable ways of both tackling water
pollution at source and improving water quality. To ensure the process around catchment
and land management is as robust as possible, it is important to develop an integrated
administrative and regulatory framework to avoid duplicating work. There maybe scope for
better co-operation on land management.

4.    What changes could be made to provide better quality outcomes for the
      environment, economy and society?

In your response, you may wish to consider aspects such as scope for increased
collaboration; involving other organisations; alternative delivery models e.g. civil society or
private sector; functions that could be performed more effectively by other organisations.

The Government should ensure the EA and NE's approach to fulfilling its duty to contribute
to sustainable development, considers the impact on all those who pay the bill for
environmental work. This should improve societal outcomes as the agencies would also
focus on delivering outcomes that gave clear benefits to society at a cost-effective price.

There is extensive work to do to ensure everyone makes a fair contribution to meeting
European environmmental requirements. Those who contribute to the cost of environmental
work, such as water customers, landowners and taxpayers, will need clear evidence of the
benefits they receive from this work and a say in how it is phased. Environmental work must
be implemented at a pace that water customers find acceptable and affordable.

Without a regard to the water bill payer, there is a risk the water industry could see
dissatisfaction with bill increases that could impact on the legitimacy of the water industry
and the wider regulatory system, as demonstrated in recent years in South West England.

To overcome this risk, water customers' desired outcomes for the environment and for
affordable bills should help drive the EA and NE's decision making processes on how fast

                                                                                                  3

environmental improvements are carried out. Doing so would help to ensure that desired
outcomes properly balance the needs of the environment, economy and society.

5.    Of the range of options for reform proposed to the current delivery
      arrangements, which do you think are the most appropriate – if any – to
      achieve better quality outcomes for the environment, economy and
      society on a sustainable basis and why?

Of the options for reform, we prefer scenario 1. Both NE and EA should be given time to
deliver the synergies and efficiencies arising out of their respective merger and restructuring
programmes.

Moreover, we believe that water consumers' interests would not be best served if there was
any disruption to the service the EA or NE provide, unless there were substantial long-term
advantages from change which outweigh any medium- to short-term disadvantages. Of
particular concern is the disruption that a further round of restructuring or merger could have
on the two organisation's focus on three crucial activities that impact the water industry: the
2014 Price Review; Water Resource Management Planning process; the development of
plans for the second cycle of River Basin Management. As water consumers' top priority is
a reliable and safe supply of water, it is vital that water company investment proposals for
2015-20 (and beyond) are critiqued and challenged.

The distraction caused by the review could damage the ability of the EA and NE to meet the
commitment required of them in the Customer Challenge Groups (CCG) during the 2014
Price Review. NE and EA have distinct remits and as a result they are able to engage with,
and challenge, the water companies to consider the full impact of their operations on the
environment. The participation of both organisations in local CCG meetings ensures that the
groups are made fully aware of pressures and requirements placed on the company which
allows a more full and informed discussion. We would be concerned if this level of
representation/participation was diminished.

Customers' expectations and what they are willing to pay for will be key during the 2014
Price Review. The EA have demonstrated an open-mindedness to companies developing
innovative approaches to environmental problems, as they did by supporting catchment
management schemes. Innovation will play a larger part in this price review than those
preceding it. We would wish to see both organisations engaged fully in the debate, lending
their expertise, guidance and support to the CCG's deliberation of companies' proposals.
This could assist a lower-cost delivery of environmental outcomes which would be good for
water consumers and help deliver upon the sustainability objectives contained within the
Government's Water White Paper.

                                                                                                  4

5.1 Do you have a strong preference for any of the options proposed?

Scenario 1?
(Significant ongoing reform but no major restructuring to current
institutional structures)

Scenario 2?
(Single environmental body)

An alternative?
(Please explain in your response to question 6 your ideas for an
alternative delivery option)

6.   Do you have any further suggestions for alternative delivery options
     which would achieve better quality outcomes for the environment,
     economy and society on a sustainable basis, and if so, how would they
     operate?

7.   Do you have any other comments that you would like to make?

In whatever model was chosen:

- there would need to be cross-border co-operation with Natural Resources Wales / Cyfoeth
Naturiol Cymru on a range of environmental issues, including on Severn and Dee River
Basin Management Planning.

 - we would want assurance that expertise and knowledge on water industry and water
consumer specific issues will be retained nationally and locally, and that CCWater will have
access to its expertise. The ability to interact locally with EA or NE staff who have an
excellent knowledge of their area is essential for those bodies to be effective locally, and
help the Government meet its localism agenda.

- we are also acutely aware of many pressures on customers' water and sewerage bills, and
would be wary of any changes in the structure of the EA or NE and funding arrangements
that result in costs being transferred to water and sewerage customers' bills that fall more
appropriately to the taxpayer or other sectors/stakeholders.

                                                                                               5

6