We need good regulation to meet the challenges of the future.
This summer we experienced the highest temperatures, the worst drought since the 1970’s and the driest since July in the south east of the country. Our natural eco-system and biodiversity are under increasing pressure and threats. We need to be prepared for more of these conditions as our climate changes.
We now have growing public expectations and environmental interest. The covid pandemic has raised public awareness and environmental expectations, undoubtedly leading to wider recognition of the health and well-being benefits from thriving green and blue spaces.
So, I ask – is our regulatory system ready to meet the challenges? A question that is not only raised by climate change and moving to a low carbon net zero in the future, but also the need to be more sustainable, to embed a circular economy and above all to protect people and wildlife.
On 18th January, James Bevan our CEO spoke at this Forum on ‘How to regulate better after Brexit: Think differently, speak softly and carry a bigger stick’.
He was right; we must think differently. Much of our framework for environmental regulation is in place to manage fossil fuel-powered processes and technologies. And here at the Environment Agency we have some ideas on how this should change.
In my 25 years as a regulator, I have seen many improvements that regulation can deliver, for example:
Great reduction of radioactive discharges to the marine environment so that the additional concentration in the environment is close to zero.
Significant reduction of pollutants from industry into the air – such as oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, particulate matter, greenhouse gases and methane.
Most of the activities we regulate are compliant with their requirements. We publish details of these activities each year in our annual Regulating for People the Environment and Growth reports.
There is a proper focus on the water environment – and there are successes to report, such as: significant investment in water treatment infrastructure, leading to:
The real improvement in the quality of bathing water with more than 98% meeting or exceeding the required standards, and greater biodiversity in our rivers, as a result of the reduction of organic pollution phosphorous and ammonia from monitored discharges.
But…. we know that there are still big challenges.
Despite the improvements, 86% of our rivers have not reached good ecological status.
In our Water Company Performance report only one-third of companies were rated industry leaders, the remaining two-thirds were rated poor or in need of improvement. It is right that there is great public concern about their performance and the condition of our rivers. Our Chair called the performance of the pollution sector ‘shocking’.
The storm surge monitors, installed at our insistence, show that it is moving and overflowing our rivers regularly. It is now the subject of a major investigation by the Environment Agency.
Not only water companies, farming is responsible for about 40% of water body failures. It is one of the sectors that cause many serious pollution incidents, it is useless to clean the water industry to improve the quality of the water; Action on pollution and discharges from farms and other pollutants is also required.
Water pollution, waste and other environmental crimes continue to be a scourge on society and cost the economy an estimated £900 million per year.
The regulatory framework is complex, in places overly prescriptive, and can be slow to adapt as new risks arise from changing practices, new chemicals and substances, or as our knowledge and understanding of risks change.
Innovations in areas such as health care and manufacturing bring their own environmental challenges. Challenges such as anti-microbial resistance, and the constant presence of ‘permanent’ chemicals require global solutions, and that is why EA supports the government as one of the leading countries in the bag United Nations Global Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution Prevention.
So, what will the future of environmental regulation look like?
While, ultimately, this is a question for the Government to decide, I offer the following:
Regulation for a fossil fuel driven economy may no longer be relevant as we move to a low carbon net zero economy. At the Environment Agency we already support businesses that want to test the use of hydrogen in their processes or develop technologies for capturing and storing carbon dioxide; we ensure that our regulation is suitable to support the development of advanced nuclear technologies and fusion energy production.
If we are to deliver the results of the government’s 25-year plan and improve our environment, nature and health and well-being, then there is a role for traditional regulation. There is still a need to set standards, and targets, limits on capacities and throughputs and the need for restrictions on chemicals and substances.
But there is some ‘necessary’ regulation for the future if we want to better support innovation and technologies that don’t exist yet – across healthcare, the food system, energy and more: it must have enough scope, adaptable, fast. fast, risk-based, results-focused. Regulation should have a progressive framework that is flexible and proportionate, and makes it easy to dial up and dial down the level of intervention as risks and our understanding of risks change.
There are continuous innovations in monitoring, analysis and evaluation, which will support the development of robust evidence and inform all aspects of the regulatory cycle, from policy development, and choice of tools to individual actions. to implement.
Digital, big data and greater use of citizen science, will help regulators better focus on the highest risk activities and concentrate on where we can make the biggest contribution to results, for example:
The Environment Agency continues to invest in digital technologies. We now have systems for online registration and fishing licenses. We tested and launched an e-alerts system for water abstraction license holders, replacing a paper-based and letter-based system with electronic alerts. Reduce the time required from days to minutes when notifying license holders if they can or cannot abstract water. There are benefits for license holders and the environment.
Unfortunately, there still needs to be a big stick, to make sure that the wrongdoers are held accountable. Deterrence for illegal or criminal activities should outweigh any benefits.
Also, the future should be about carrots as well as big sticks. If we are to achieve our ambitious targets, regulation and regulators must support and encourage the front runners. Those with a positive attitude, who want to do the right things and go beyond compliance.
We work with a Regulators Pioneer fund funded SEEBEYOND project, with the Food and Drink sector and Cambridge University. Through the SEEBEYOND project we are exploring how to standardize environmental metrics to measure beyond compliance and help use moral and market incentives to improve environmental performance in the Food and Drink sector, focusing on GHG emissions, waste, water , and use of materials. This is learning that has the potential to be scaled to other sectors and environmental indicator areas over time.
Regulation should work with, support and integrate financial and economic instruments, for example the Environment Agency manages a £bn carbon market through its trading methods.
Environmental and financial regulation must evolve in lockstep. Greening finance creates opportunities for businesses and the financial sector to go beyond compliance to invest in solutions for climate and environmental challenges. To be most effective these investments and the data that support them must be scientifically based and verified by experts, such as the Environment Agency.
We are supporting Treasury and Government partners in developing the technical specification for the UK green climate taxonomy (mitigation and adaptation) and will continue to provide inputs on the four remaining parts of the taxonomy, at the government’s request.
Looking outside and inside.
With leaving the European Union, we have the opportunity to review, change and change our environmental legislation for the better.
In a rapidly changing world, we must face the challenge of regulating emerging industries to support innovation while responding to emerging environmental issues to limit environmental damage and maintain public confidence.
Regulators and regulations should work with international standards such as ISO 14001 in environmental management systems and ISO 14090 in Adaptation to climate change and in the certification and assurance industry.
We must continue to work with partners in the international arena such as the IAEA, OECD, Agile Nations Network, so that we can share learning and best practice and better understand what that looks like.
There needs to be a society-wide discussion about risk, costs and benefits, and options, so that regulation can continue to work and protect all members of society.
We should not be afraid to critically review our regulatory systems and sort ourselves out; building on our successes, but shining a light where changes are needed. Only by continuing to do so can we deliver the best results for sustainable business, people and the environment.
Environmental regulation has evolved and evolved over the past 170 years, it must continue to evolve and evolve to be fit for the future. Get it right, and the UK will continue to be a leader in developing and applying good regulation and sharing our lessons, so that we not only protect and improve our own environment, but are leaders in protecting and improving the environment all over the world.
