Budget cuts and lack of staff could put the environment at risk, a watchdog head has said, warning that without motivated workers the Environmental Improvement Plan will not be delivered.
James Bevan told the Environmental Audit Committee that repeatedly slashed funding had stopped the Environment Agency (EA) from carrying out its work and caused “significant difficulties” to recruiting and retaining staff.
“If we can’t pay our staff, to recruit, retain and motivate staff with the high level of technical skills that we need then we won’t be able to deliver the EIP,” the body’s chief executive said.
The core grant from government was around £120 million in 2010/11, but that “progressively diminished” to £55 million two years ago. It has now been partially restored to £96.5 million.
Bevan, who will step down at the end of March after seven years leading the organisation, said regulators can make progress where there are the right tools and resources.
However, even with additional funding granted by government for this year and the next two, Bevan spelt out that the amount available for enforcement action remains small – around 0.5% of the total budget.
He set out that the majority of the agency’s overall financial grant of £1,172 million is ringfenced for flood defences. Of the residual £142 million, around £46 million is dedicated to water transfer schemes and river navigations.
He said the remainder is the core grant, which amounts to £96.5 million to deliver all the EA’s commitments. “The effect of diminishing grants has caused pressure on our enforcement function,” Bevan said. This year, with the increased core budget, the EA only has £7 million available for enforcement – half a percent of the entire budget.
He said prosecution and “substantial sentences” were effective deterrents and admitted Enforcement Undertakings’ greatest deterrent was reputational. “The biggest of all deterrents is a robust regulatory framework,” Bevan said, underlining the need for resources.
These cuts meant fewer field staff, which impacted how many reported pollution incidents the EA can respond to – now only visiting the most serious.
Bevan said staffing was a challenge because the EA could not pay competitively for the marketable technical skills it requires.
Last month EA staff went on strike for the first time in a decade over pay and conditions. Bevan said staff deserve a fair pay deal because of the nationally important work they do, and that some need a proper pay deal because some are forced to use food banks.
He defended the system of operator self-reporting as a useful tool because “it forces water companies to treat protecting the environment as a core part of their day-to-day business” rather than because of an inspection.
“There are decent arguments for operator self-monitoring, the least good argument is cost. Polluters should pay the cost of their activities therefore water companies that can risk pollution should pay the cost of monitoring,” Bevan said.
Although the amount the EA can spend on enforcement has fallen, regulatory charges for companies have increased, which has enabled more recruitment and monitoring activity. This in turn will improve water quality, Bevan told the EAC.
Bevan has spoken often about the restrictions that budgets impose on the Agency’s ability to effectively regulate and last year warned that “we will get the environment we are willing to pay for”.