OEP Chair Dame Glenys Stacey gave the keynote address at Westminster Forum's 'Next steps for protecting and managing England's natural capital' event on Tuesday, 15 July. Her speech was titled 'Priorities for environmental monitoring and accountability moving forward.'
Hello, and thank you for inviting me to deliver the keynote address after such a thought-provoking morning of discussion.
So much happening. So much to decide, and then, of course, to put into action. So many balls in the air, as the Earl of Devon put is earlier this morning.
I’d like first of all to build on Ada’s view this morning on the wider context for these discussions. I hardly need to remind those here that nature is in crisis. In our most recent progress report on delivery of the EIP, the headline for the 12 months up to March 2024 is that government remains off track to achieve its environmental goals and targets.
Our assessment of the prospects of meeting 43 environmental targets and commitments found that government is largely on track to achieve 9, partially on track to achieve 12 and largely off track to achieve 20.
In terms of the overall prospects of government meeting its ambitions for the goal areas set out in the EIP, we concluded that in seven goal areas, including the apex goal of achieving ‘thriving plants and wildlife’, government is largely off track. In three goal areas, government is partially on track (‘clean air,’ ‘reducing the risk of harm from environmental hazards’ and ‘enhancing beauty, heritage and engagement with the natural environment’).
Monitoring and reporting annually on government’s progress in delivering against it ambitions as set out in its 25-year Environmental Improvement Plan and as against the statutory targets set for the environment, will always be a first priority for the OEP.
We made a number of recommendations when we last report in January this year, all aimed at helping government get on track, and with the prospect of a revised EIP in mind. I will recap those again here, although I have spoken in more detail of them at previous events.
Government must get nature-friendly farming right.
Government must maximise the contribution of protected sites for nature.
Government must speed up action in the marine environment.
Government must set out clear mechanisms for reconciling competing demands for use of land and sea
Government must develop a circular economy framework
In addition to these areas for action, we said greater progress will also be enabled with actions on three cross-cutting enablers:
Government must mobilise investment at the scale needed.
Government must regulate more effectively
Government must harness the support needed to achieve ambitions
These remain matters of interest to us of course, and matters where we monitor and we keep track of any progress.
When I spoke at one of these events in March I said that there had been much to welcome in what government is doing currently, things that if done well, could make a real difference. I was thinking of things such as the Cunliffe Review on water, the Corry Review on environmental regulation and, of course, the EIP refresh, among others.
We are now at an interesting point in time. The good intentions, the discussion and planning, the reviewing and assessing, must now be translated into urgent action and effective implementation.
Six months ago we at the OEP said the window of opportunity for government to get on track was closing fast. A number of key targets are very close now - the 30 by 30 target on land and sea, the Water Framework Directive targets due in 2027, EIP interim targets in 2028 and air emission targets in 2029 and 30, to give some examples.
That window will soon slam shut.
Revised EIP and Cunliffe review
The revision of the EIP remains key. We now expect that to be published after the summer break and hopefully before conference season.
This is the opportunity to bring everything together, to have clear plans for delivery, for everyone to know what is to be achieved and how, and how those efforts relate to statutory and other targets and Government’s ambitions.
I have spoken before about our views on what the new EIP should include. Effective prioritisation of actions, front loading efforts to have impact quickly, transparent delivery planning with actions linked to specific targets. We have spoken of more effective regulation, the need to harness support, and the importance of clear and achievable interim targets.
As we near the point of publication, the plea I make above all others to Defra at this time is for transparency. We all need to see the homework - the working out - and the path to delivery so that we know the contributions that everyone is to make, and for effective accountability to Parliament.
Alongside the revised EIP, the independent water commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe presents a major opportunity.
And again, our advice here centres on effective implementation. It is our considered view that the widely anticipated failure to meet those 2027 targets under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) Regulations is, at least in significant part, the result of a failure to produce and apply specific plans, rather than a failure in the design of the regulations themselves.
Should the Commission choose to recommend reform of these targets, or government wish to propose such amendments, targets set should be ambitious, long-term and legally-binding ‘apex’ targets that specify the environmental outcomes to be achieved, which should then be pursued through specific and timebound delivery plans, accompanied by review mechanisms.
On the overarching framework for managing water, we believe there are some positive attributes under the WFD Regulations but there is also the opportunity to improve delivery and governance mechanisms in order to create the accountability needed to achieve intended outcomes across the wider framework for managing water.
We have read the interim report that came out last month with interest, and wait to see the final report and recommendations. And, most crucially, what Government chooses to act on.
So that is the big picture stuff. Important changes are on the horizon. We must all be vigilant that they deliver change at the scale and pace needed.
With that context in mind, there are some specific topics that the OEP has been focused on in recent months.
Planning and infrastructure
You will all be aware of the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It has been the subject of much discussion, and concern, including here this morning.
We welcome the Government’s intention for this proposed reform, to secure better outcomes for nature at the same time as accelerating necessary development – the win win outcomes – and believe that much of what the Bill seeks to achieve would be beneficial, if well implemented.
But we identified a number of areas where environmental protections in the Bill should be strengthened, and provided advice to Government about that.
Taking a more strategic approach to addressing environmental challenges such as nutrient overloading, has much to commend it. We wish to see that strategic approach succeed, to deliver co-ordinated action that improves nature at the appropriate geographical scale.
But there are fewer protections for nature written into the bill than under existing law. Creating new flexibility without sufficient legal safeguards could see environmental outcomes lessened over time.
It is our considered view, the bill as originally presented would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law.
But the situation is not unresolvable. With our advice, we offered ways in which the environmental protections in the approach could be strengthened.
We have been engaging with MHCLG about our advice. We are being listened to. So, watch this space. And once the Bill is enacted, the risks move to delivery. We have already discussed here the demand to be made on Natural England. It will need freedom to operate, the right skills mix to hand, and adequate and timely resourcing.
Biodiversity Net Gain
Staying in the world of planning, we also have an interest in the proposed changes to Biodiversity Net Gain for smaller and brownfield sites. We are preparing our submission to the consultation. To give a flavour of our views, we think the proposals for significant design and methodological changes to BNG offer some benefits but carry environmental risk.
I was pleased to hear this morning from Edward Church, and the 20% BNG proposed in his area – thank you. BNG certainly has its part to play. When it comes to the changes now proposed, a concern here for the OEP here is about evidence. Or the lack of. The consultation does not present any detailed evidence regarding the nature and extent of the implementation challenges that the proposed changes are intended to address, or of the anticipated impact of the proposals.
This may be due to the relative short period that the scheme has been in operation, but it does mean that it is difficult to understand why particular proposals have been made, and what effect proposals may have for the scale, quality and location of BNG actions, the prospects of the BNG unit market, and for biodiversity outcomes.
We are particularly concerned that, in the absence of sufficient evidence, the proposed changes may have negative unintended consequences.
We will publish our full submission shortly.
Land use framework
Sitting above those local planning issues is the Land Use Framework, subject to another consultation by Government. The Earl of Deven spoke earlier of the confusion he and others find in seeking to understand how it relates to landholders.
We welcome the prospect of a more coherent approach to land use policy and spatial prioritisation, and we find much to commend in the proposed framework.
The consultation rightly focuses on balancing land use objectives for the environment, climate and food production. As it covers around two thirds of England’s land, farmland presents the greatest opportunity to make space for nature, yet it falls largely outside of current spatial planning frameworks. The consultation is clear about the significant scale and pace of land use change needed to deliver targets for nature recovery and Net Zero. Back to our recommendation in the EIP progress report – get nature friendly farming right.
We welcome the intelligent principles for decision-making set out in the consultation.
Maximising the benefits of the land will depend on balancing multifunctionality, while playing to the strengths of the land, and foresight of long-term opportunities and risks, including from climate change.
The focus now should be on finalising and operationalising the LUF. It must become an integral and influential framework to bring much needed coherence to land use policy.
Local Nature Recovery Strategies
The local level is also important here, when considering how to use and manage land to best protect and improve the environment. We find that the importance of local delivery, the contribution that can be made to nature recovery at that level, often gets lost in the discussions. But as Edward demonstrated so ably, earlier, district councils and others at a local level have a key role in helping government achieve those desired ‘win-win’ outcomes for the environment and economic growth.
Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS) set out local priorities for nature, by showing where important wildlife exists now and identifying areas that have potential to become important for wildlife in the future.
But they need to be developed and delivered at pace if they are to substantially contribute to government achieving its targets and goals. Only four have been published to date, with the original intention that they all be in place by March 2025.
While we know that a lot of excellent work has taken place to develop these strategies around the country, that so few have been published is deeply regrettable. We reported in detail on developments in relation to these strategies just last month. This is the first time of course that such strategies have been required. We are interested in them, and the best of them. They will be refreshed over time, and I hope to see government’s key ambitions for the environment reflected more and more in those strategies. They can provide the link, the golden thread as between those ambitions and then the priorities at a local level.
Inspections
Looking in more detail now at some of the nuts and bolts of environmental governance, we are interested in the role of inspections, a key monitoring tool.
I mentioned the Corry review earlier. Environmental regulation is under the spotlight somewhat at the moment. Understandably and rightly. The role that inspections play in this – in the effective implementation of environmental law, in ensuring those laws deliver as intended - perhaps does not get the attention it deserves.
Inspection is key. It can identify non-compliant and errant behaviour so that it can be dealt with. Without effective inspection taking place, regulators, government and parliament cannot know if the law is working as intended to deliver the environmental outcomes expected.
We have looked recently at approaches that are expected under a sample of English environmental laws, 197 in total, and considered what level of inspections are taking place in selected regulatory regimes, using 10 case studies to identify themes around current practices.
The five key themes are:
High levels of discretion for regulators - Most of the laws looked at did not contain inspection duties. This gives regulators a high degree of discretion about how they undertake inspections, which is reasonable as they should know best how to discharge their responsibilities.
But where there is such a high degree of discretion, transparency is important to ensure scrutiny, and so that regulated bodies understand what to expect.
Lack of transparency - Under the Regulators’ Code, regulators have to publish information on their approach to inspections. In practice what is published contains few details as to how inspections will be implemented.
Up-to-date information on what inspections have taken place is often not clear or accessible on public registers, which hinders effective scrutiny and risks reducing public confidence.
Oversight - Where regulators have high levels of discretion, oversight is important to drive effectiveness. Defra does not have a dedicated system for oversight of environmental inspections.
Resourcing - Clear information about how much money was raised to support inspections, and particularly how inspections were resourced, was difficult to obtain. This lack of clear data reduces transparency and oversight and may make it difficult for regulators to make efficiencies and improvements.
Risk-based regulation - Risk-based regulation can be highly effective, targeting those regulated entities posing the greatest risks. But regulators must also identify the level of resource to spend on low risks, which cumulatively could have a high impact over time.
It is difficult to assess whether risk is being applied correctly as details of actual practice for risk-based inspections are not made publicly available. Transparency here would be welcome. As it is, some current approaches look increasingly like ‘resource-constrained’ inspections, rather than ‘risk-based’ inspections.
Our recommendations include:
- Defra (and other government departments which have environmental regulatory responsibilities), should review existing guidance and ensure that it is fully up to date
- Environmental regulators should ensure that details about inspections they have undertaken are regularly published
- Environmental regulators should improve how they publish the information on their approach to compliance checks required by the Regulators’ Code
Defra, working with environmental regulators, should review whether risk-based regulation is still being implemented appropriately - Defra should examine whether future Post-Implementation Reviews (PIRs) of environmental laws could include an improved evaluation of the inspections carried out under these laws.
We have further work on inspections to be published later in the year, with a focus on the quality of those taking place.
Conclusion
So that was a quick tour of where the OEP is focusing its attention, with regard to environmental monitoring and accountability.
What can we take from all that?
Now fours years into the OEP’s existence, a number of over-arching themes have emerged.
These are not new, but bear repeating.
The need to focus on and to drive effective implementation. Clarity around delivery plans – who is to do what and when, how this contributes to the ambitions and commitments, and ensuring the skills and resources are in place to make them achievable.
The need for evidence-based assessments of progress. So plans can be amended, and decisions made on a proper understanding of what is actually happening.
The need for transparency. There is such will to contribute, for people to play their part. They can’t do that if they don’t know the plan. And there cannot be accountability if information is not available as it should be.
And there is a new issue on the horizon. One that we must all be ready for.
We have said the window for opportunity is closing fast. Important targets are nearly upon us. I have said that urgent action is needed to get on track. But what happens if important targets are missed?
We have already seen a failure to achieve Good Ecological Status for marine waters by 31 December 2020, as set by the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010. We at the OEP have an ongoing investigation into that, with the aim of pushing for a clear plan to meet that target as soon as possible. I have mentioned here already the anticipated failure to meet the 2027 WFD Regs targets.
Failure to meet environmental targets must not go unrecognised. Nature needs more from all of us than an ‘oh well’ and shrugged shoulders. Targets should not just pass by.
If such failures happen, there must be acknowledgement of the significance. Accountability for the failure. Action to ensure that things get back on track. All of this should be dealt with transparently, and with a focus on effectively delivering the changes and improvements needed.
It is still possible for Government to get on track. But it will take urgent action, underpinned by effective governance.
Thank you. Thank you for listening.
