The EAC inquiry so soon after publication can’t be what Defra had hoped for, but it’s what happens if you don’t get the process right – not consulting on it for example. Although it is a ‘short inquiry’ people should take the chance to tell EAC what they think of the plan. There are six sets of commentary set out below giving headline responses. 

The Environmental Audit Committee launches a short inquiry into the Government’s 25-Year Plan for the Environment.

• Inquiry: 25-Year Environment Plan
• Environmental Audit Committee

The inquiry

The Government published its long-awaited 25-Year Plan for the Environment on 11 January 2018. The Committee’s inquiry will examine key decisions around the Plan’s overall ambition and approach.

Strategies

The Plan sets out a number of 25-year goals and a combination of new and existing strategies, targets, mechanisms and commitments in order to meet those goals. The Government proposes to update the Plan every 5 years and to report annually on progress to Parliament. The Government will develop a set of indicators to monitor progress.

The Committee is likely to hold one oral evidence hearing, followed by a hearing with the Government. The Committee will also scrutinise the Plan’s proposals in specific areas as part of its regular work programme.

Four reactions to the 25 year Environment:

Water UK: Responding to publication of the Government’s Environment Plan, Water UK Chief Executive Michael Roberts   https://www.water.org.uk/news-water-uk/latest-news/water-uk-response-governments-environment-plan

CIRIA: Support for SuDS with new planning guidelines https://www.ciria.org/News/CIRIA_news2/CIRIA%20-%20championing%20the%20Environment.aspx

Wildlife & Countryside Link response: https://www.wcl.org.uk/environment-charities-welcome-25-year-environment-plan-but-environment-act-needs-to-secure-its-success.asp

Richard Benwell (WWT) – on 25 year plan – blog https://www.wcl.org.uk/the-environment-plan-a-green-signpost-at-brexit-crossroads.asp

Responses to the 25 year plan 

Waterwise: ‘We’re delighted to see the ambition from the Prime Minister and Secretary of State in the 25 Year Environment Plan launched in January – including to work with Waterwise and the industry to improve water efficiency and customer involvement to explore the impact of introducing new water efficiency measures. It’s refreshing to see a commitment to government as well as industry action so that water use in England falls, including an ambitious personal consumption target and cost-effective measures to meet it.’  

Bruce Horton ‘Infrastructure providers may (subject to consultation) see the requirement for a ‘net benefit to biodiversity’ on new developments becoming mandatory, whilst water companies are expected to reduce leakage by at least an average of 15% by 2025, and the government will work with the water industry to determine ambitious targets for personal water consumption. There’s some vague stuff about SuDS, but the Plan has been criticised for lacking urgency (eliminate all avoidable plastic waste by 2042?) and ambition (little new action on air pollution and no mention of fracking).

Bob Earll: ‘It’s a start. Without any significant document on the environment for many years this plan begins to set out the Government’s thinking and is an important step in the right direction. It is much more than just about plastics. It makes commitments to consultations this year on the new Environmental Body, principles, and metrics for assessing progress. It also commits to a yearly review. A five year review period is mooted and that is what would actually make it much more useful as a process and have utility beyond one Government.’

There are important statements for water, land use and wildlife. There are interesting ideas on recovery for biodiversity, ‘net benefit to biodiversity’ from development, and what is emerging as a principle of ‘public money for public goods’ presumably intended for the revised approach to payments to farming. There are a huge number of references to the health and wellbeing benefits of the environment, but no references to social capital. Its commitments to sustainability and the ecosystem approach (only for fisheries!) are very weak. It seems that every other sentence in the body of the text has had the words ‘natural capital’ inserted by a robot. Appendix 1 looks rather useful with back-up and references to material in the main plan. It is a work in progress and many of the promises are much too vague.