POLLUTION scientists will have fewer legal weapons in their armoury for
cleaning up rivers after an Environment Agency is set up in Britain in April
1996. And unlike similar agencies in the US and elsewhere, the British
鈥減ollution police鈥� will have no overriding mission to protect the
environment.
Environment groups reacted with horror last week to the small print in the
draft legislation for the agency when it was announced by John Gummer, the
environment secretary, at the Conservative Party Conference. But the
Confederation of British Industry welcomed the plan as 鈥渁 major deregulatory
step to help both business and the environment鈥�.
The agency will combine the functions of the National Rivers Authority
(NRA), Her Majesty鈥檚 Inspectorate of Pollution and local waste regulation
authorities. But the crucial clause 7 of the draft legislation, which sets out
the duties of the agency, says merely that when setting limits to pollution
the agency shall 鈥渉ave regard to the desirability of conserving and enhancing鈥�
the environment. This, environmentalists point out, is much less tough than
the 1989 legislation setting up the NRA, which required it to 鈥渇urther the
conservation and enhancement鈥� of the environment.
Advertisement
The change is doubly damaging, say environmentalists, because the
legislation also requires the agency to 鈥渉ave regard to costs and benefits in
exercising its powers鈥� and to 鈥渕inimise the burden on industry鈥�.
鈥淭his weakens existing environmental legislation,鈥� says Fiona Reynolds,
director of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. Andrew Lees,
campaigns director at Friends of the Earth, says the agency will be 鈥渟upine鈥�,
especially as ministers want to give themselves wide powers to intervene in
the day-to-day decisions of the agency.
Another critic is David Kinnersley, an adviser to past Conservative
environment secretaries and architect of the legislation that set up the NRA.
He warned that the emphasis on cost-benefit analysis before embarking on the
cleanup could stifle innovation and the development of new technologies to
combat pollution. 鈥淥ften firms complain about the `terrible burden鈥� of
cleaning up. But if they are forced to do it, they frequently find ways to
reduce costs that could not be foreseen at the start,鈥� he says.
鈥淭he agency needs to have a duty to reduce damage to the environment
without knowing precisely what it will cost,鈥� says Kinnersley. 鈥淵ou simply
don鈥檛 know the costs in advance.鈥�
It is three years since John Major announced that he would set up an
Environment Agency. Lees claims that during the agency鈥檚 long gestation the
Department of the Environment lost numerous battles to give it teeth. The
Treasury refused to fund a large and powerful pollution agency, and the
Department of Trade and Industry fought to remove restraints on industry.
In his announcement, Gummer said the agency 鈥渞epresents an important step
in the government鈥檚 policies of sustainable development鈥� and would 鈥渃ombine
economic development with protection and conservation of the environment鈥�.
But environmentalists claim that the key commitments on sustainable
development made by John Major at the Earth Summit two years ago had been
forgotten. 鈥淎t Rio, the government signed up to the precautionary principle,鈥�
says Lees, 鈥渂ut I cannot find any mention of that here.鈥�
杏吧原创s at the NRA fear that the structure of the agency will not allow
them to manage rivers effectively. The NRA鈥檚 chairman, Lord Crickhowell,
warned that vital functions of the organisation such as managing national
water resources and fisheries might collapse. Regulation of the nation鈥檚
water, he said, was about 鈥渁 lot more than pollution control鈥�.