Review of NIEA Regulatory Charging Policy 2010-13
and proposals for 2013-16
Comments by
Northern Ireland Environment Link
4 April 2013
Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL) is the networking and forum body for non-statutory
organisations concerned with the environment of Northern Ireland. Its 62 Full Members
represent over 90,000 individuals, 262 subsidiary groups, have an annual turnover of £70
million and manage over 314,000 acres of land. Members are involved in environmental
issues of all types and at all levels from the local community to the global environment. NIEL
brings together a wide range of knowledge, experience and expertise which can be used to
help develop policy, practice and implementation across a wide range of environmental
fields.
These comments are made on behalf of Members, but some members may be providing
independent comments as well. If you would like to discuss these comments further we
would be delighted to do so.
Prof Sue Christie, Director
Northern Ireland Environment Link
89 Loopland Drive
Belfast, BT6 9DW
P: 028 9045 5770
E: Sue@nienvironmentlink.org
W: www.nienvironmentlink.org
Northern Ireland Environment Link is a Company limited by guarantee No NI034988 and a
Charity registered with Inland Revenue No XR19598
NIEL welcomes the opportunity to comment on the review of NIEA Regulatory Charging
Policy 2010-13 and proposals for 2013-16. We strongly advocate the position that the
economy and the environment are inextricably linked, that the environment is the envelope
in which the economy must exist and on which it depends, and also that costs to the
environment should be recognised and represented in monetary terms. As such, the
regulation of activities that impact on the environment (often for short-term economic
advantage) is a crucial part of environmental protection and educates operators regarding
the very real cost of environmental damage. This aligns with an ecosystem services
approach to the natural environment, where the true cost of what nature provides for society
is recognised and taken into account during decision-making.
We welcome the concepts behind the Department of the Environment’s Environmental
Better Regulation White Paper (2011), and their subsequent implementation through the
current policy and future proposals (2013-16). Responses from NIEL to specific questions in
the consultation document are dealt with below.
3. Do you support the concept of risk-based charging? Do you think that NIEA should
be able to recover additional costs associated with dealing with poor performers?
Yes, to both questions. NIEL supports the idea of ‘credit’ being given to operators that are
performing well (as suggested in the Better Regulation White Paper 2011). This would widen
the gap between responsible, reputable operators and those who consistently show a lack of
regard for either law or environment. Identifying a list of ‘good’ operators who need less
rigorous regulation would effectively streamline the system.
Additional costs being recovered associated with dealing with poor performers would further
highlight the links between ‘hidden’ costs of environmental damage and monetary cost.
5. Do you agree with the application of compliance weighting? Which option would
you think is most appropriate for introducing risk based charges?
Yes. Option 3 (300%, 150%, 90%) is preferable and offers the greatest financial incentives in
both negative and positive directions.
7. Do you agree with compliance profiles for permitted operators being published on
an annual basis?
Yes. Public transparency is another tool with which to encourage compliance.
9. Would you support the concept of a paid-for dedicated pre-application resource?
AND
10. Do you support more flexible use of current regulatory income on complementary
interventions and support?
Yes, to both questions. Working with responsible businesses who strive to meet their
environmental obligations is likely to foster more of an atmosphere of trust between operator
and regulator. This is to be encouraged, streamlining the process, educating operators,
reducing damage to the environment, and boosting compliance levels. It is reasonable to
expect that a pre-application resource would come at some cost to the operator.