Inside Track Special report
have taken this to be positive support for a proposal but accept that if the caveats or conditions are not met, this could turn into a lack of support”. Overall, SEPA is confident its proposals
have the broad backing of stakeholders. Over 90 per cent of respondents answered ‘Yes’ or ‘Yes, qualified’ when asked whether they would like to see “simpler and more integrated environmental regulation – removing complexity for regulators, businesses and communities alike”. A similar number offered their general agreement that a risk-assessment process should be at the heart of determining what level of regulation should be applied to operators while 79 per cent agreed that inspections should be reduced to the lower levels typically seen across Europe. On simplifying regulation, 75 per cent supported exploring the feasibility of more operators self-monitoring and a further 87 per cent recognised the need for “more integrated permissions, including the use of single site licenses (as opposed to multiple permits) and operator or network-level licenses”. SEPA’s better regulation manager Rob Morris said the response had been both full and broadly positive. “Te views they expressed were pretty full, pretty supportive and clearly indicating that … at a principles level we are on the right track,” he said. “Tere was a lot of positivity around the overall package and there are some components of that … we didn’t expect.” Te key principle underpinning the new
approach is that a risk-assessment process should be used to decide which activities should be regulated at what level and where the level of regulatory control is allied to risk and operator compliance. Te change would, in effect, see low-risk, compliant operators be rewarded with less oversight. “Teir approach towards risk-based
regulation is something we very much support,” said Mary Goodman, senior policy adviser at the Federation of Small Businesses. “We accept that there is a need for regulation in this area, and given that we accept that, we want it to be proportional.” While the consultation was only designed
to establish the key principles that should underpin the reform process as it goes forward, several tangible changes have emerged. A key feature of the efficiency drive is a move to reduce non-essential inspections and move to an audit-based model. SEPA believes the new approach would see staff better employed to respond to problems as they emerge rather than maintaining the treadmill of timetabled inspections, said Morris. “Te nature of inspections is changing from a walk-through, checklist inspection where we then leave the
26 Holyrood 27 June 2011 David Sigsworth
are prepared to comply, and if they don’t then the consequences are tougher and swifter. So it’s risk that generates that enforcement message. It’s not less regulation, it is better regulation that is simpler, more integrated and joined up and hopefully, a bit more efficient in the way it’s delivered and certainly more proportionate. But it’s not a ‘less’ issue.” Te change of emphasis will mean the role
of many of SEPA’s staff on the ground will be altered fundamentally. Morris said the agency is already preparing for the transition, adding businesses are onboard. “It’s a different kind of dialogue and expertise needed in the organisation and we’re currently investing in that audit training right now. Tere’s over 200 staff who are going through an audit training course, and (they will) subsequently be going to more specialist auditors later on who will be expected to talk to businesses at their level about what their processes are doing. “Businesses have come back to us in their
site and write a letter back saying ‘we found X, Y and Z’ to an audit approach. So we may spend more time actually getting to the root cause of an issue and exploring it at the time and seeking to develop it rather than leaving the site unexplained and then the business
“We accept that there is a need for regulation in this area, and given that we
accept that, we want it to be proportional”
concerned then having to do the investigation having received the letter. “So yes, we will reduce inspections, but we
will also up audits, and audits are a better way to get to the bottom of what compliance issues there are and where the potential solutions and plans for that are to be directed.” Morris said that while the number of inspections and site visits are likely to drop, the new model should not be mistaken for a reduction in vigilance. “It’s more about understanding what sectors are about and anticipating how we can support them and encourage them to invest in environmental compliance rather than arrive as an inspector or enforcer as a first point of contact. “Tey have to demonstrate to us that they
responses, saying, ‘Yes, we would expect that level of expertise to exist in SEPA if you’re serious about adopting an audit-based approach’. So I think businesses are ready for that, and we need to make that message around that big step-change (from) high numbers to lower numbers about the value of the inspections and the purpose of them rather than a diminution in service.” Te hope is that with less resources
committed to the grind of inspections, staff will have more time to think strategically and identify recurring problems. According to Andy Myles, parliamentary officer of Scottish Environment LINK, a forum for Scotland’s voluntary environment organisations, new regulation should move away from a sticking- plaster approach and place more emphasis on longstanding problems. “We would particularly like to see how any proposals are going to relate to widespread pollution,” he said. “Tere is a tendency to view policing incidents in terms of, for example, spilling a toxic material into a river. Actually, our concern is not just with making sure that that kind of very acute pollution doesn’t take place but with the kind of diffuse pollution that you get from consistent long-term use of pesticides and fertilisers in the run-off in the water tables. We want to make sure that that diffuse pollution is properly recognised.” Myles added that the switch to an audit-
based approach should not be applied across the board. Monitoring processes should be carefully calibrated to take account of specific circumstances, he added. “Tere are certain things where long-term monitoring should continue because diffuse pollution, pollution that is spread out, can’t be caught in the auditing perspective; it requires regular long-term monitoring. We’re quite prepared
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80