Why the Environment Agency is Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Environmental Protection | Insights from WildFish

Every year, we respond to various consultations and announcements about green issues from regulators and the government.

Some of these are well-founded, while others seem like reactions to criticism. Many announcements appear to roll back existing environmental protections in favor of economic growth.

The recent “Chief Regulator’s Report” from the Environment Agency (EA) is a prime example of this trend.

In January, the EA introduced a new “Chief Regulator” tasked with “supporting businesses to meet future challenges while ensuring the protection of people and the environment.”

This shift seems concerning. The EA is meant to protect and enhance the environment according to the Environment Act 1995. But now, it looks like the focus is on “supporting business.”

We see this as a major concern, especially with rivers and coastal waters facing serious decline.

The push for unchecked economic growth comes at a time when WildFish is urging the government to revoke a part of the Deregulation Act 2015. This act pushes regulators to favor economic growth over environmental protection. This “Growth Duty” often leads to situations where the regulators prioritize the needs of polluters over the environment.

Interestingly, the new Chief Regulator steps into her role just as the government seeks further deregulation to accelerate development projects. It feels like our warnings are falling on deaf ears.

The report’s name has changed from the catchy “Regulating for People, the Environment and Growth” to a more corporate “Chief Regulator’s Report.” The document features big, bold numbers highlighting supposed successes of the EA. Yet, it seems like the EA hasn’t learned from criticism it faced from the Office for Environmental Protection.

For example, the section about water abstraction reveals a lot about this shift in focus. Abstraction refers to the removal of water from natural sources. In 2023, only 86% of licensed water users submitted their required returns. This raises questions about the 14% who didn’t comply. Is anyone checking their compliance?

Water is taken from rivers, lakes, and streams to meet demand. Over-abstraction occurs when more water is removed than can naturally be replenished.

The report noted 1,065 non-compliances across 761 abstraction licenses. While this number is significant, it lacks context regarding the scale of the violations.

• 44% of these violations were by the agriculture sector.
• 19% occurred within the water industry.
• 170 cases (about 16%) were for exceeding the allowed volume.

However, we still don’t know how severe these breaches are or how much water was illegally taken from rivers.

The report states that the natural water availability in some areas is nearing its limit. Yet, the impact on businesses seems to take precedence, with environmental concerns pushed aside.

We expect significant penalties for environmental violations to deter future offenses, but the current evidence suggests minimal enforcement action for breaches of abstraction licenses.

Similar issues arise with the reported sewage-related incidents from water companies. The EA counts only 47 serious incidents overall, but these numbers seem misleading without complete context. The EA’s method of categorizing incidents may give a false impression of improved performance.

Overall, it appears the Environment Agency has shifted its priorities away from protecting our rivers and instead is focusing more on accommodating the desires of businesses amid growing calls for deregulation.