As with many other practitioners I have had to deal with the EA and found their regulatory process quite a wall. Not least in terms of the development and use of modern and innovative technology. An example was when we were looking into the installation of an 'enzyme' solution for foul water waste in an ecologically sensitive area. A belts and braces design which included 'enzyme technology as a secondary back up system received scepticism from the EA - why? - quote from the EA, ''we simply do not understand this technology''.
As such two tweets today made me laugh -
A question from EON - Has the EA factored into future plans the need to be innovative?
Answer from Paul Leinster: We've estabilished an innovation panel at a senior level which removes blockers to innovation.
The answer is such a classic quangoistic response and simply conveys the idea that an excuse to form an expensive panel to sit and discuss new technology is a favoured approach to embracing it and pushing for use as quickly as possible. As such it is further evidence that the EA will continue to be the wall of regulation all businesses and practitioners need to climb in order to move towards a sustainable future.
The EA are placed in a way which can really aid us all in moving forwards. We need the EA (or an equivalent agency) at the moment but their website, PR and general rhetoric is not convincing enough to believe that the UK are well placed to tackle present or future environmental problems and are dropping behind the rest of the EU and also the US in these terms. The EA appear to be have adopted a 'corporate' identity and with it an apparent desire to corner the market of environmental practice by way of regulation to ensure continued funding and healthy salaries. On the ground and in most circumstances this is simply not true - but to qualified practitioners and a significant proportion of the general public this is the image that comes across. This image leads to some of us trying at all attempts to avoid direct correspondence with the EA and certainly for the small land management businesses it can be fatalistic. (I know of a small business lose work in an AONB area after approaching the EA for guidance - suddenly large ugly chain fencing and concrete operations were in place, when the business concerned had proposed a system using willow, silt traps and dry stone work in accordance with the clients wishes).
With less emphasis on the media and PR aspects and more engagement with communities and the qualified land management practitioners who work locally to ensure that regional identity is maintained together with the investigation of blending the traditional with the innovative, without having to go via a boardroom in London, will assure us all that the EA's commitment is real.
Comments