Government UK has issued a new report, ‘An independent review of Defra’s regulatory landscape…’.
GOV.UK writes:
It is the contention of this review that our regulatory system is not working as well as it should to support either nature recovery or economic growth. To improve the system, I have evolved five themes, with recommendations supporting each. While holding back at this stage from major institutional change in terms of the boundaries of the regulators, these recommendations – when implemented, and in combination – would create a very different dynamic and set of behaviours by all actors which I believe would lead to better outcomes all round. Understandably, environmental groups may be nervous about whether some of the recommendations – giving regulators more discretion, focusing more on value for money and growth, and considering changes to important regulations – could, if badly used, cause the environment and nature to suffer. But everything I have heard and learned during this review suggests that the current system does not work as well as it could for nature and the environment, let alone for growth. The temptation to, ‘always keep a-hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse’ is natural but is surely not the right approach to be taken to deliver positive change.
The review is very clear that there must be guardrails around any ‘constrained’ discretion, that nature enhancement must be the core purpose of environmental regulation and that changes to regulations are to allow a wider perspective to be taken that is good for nature overall. We can and will do better for economic growth but also for nature and the environment if we reform the system. The recommendations will, in combination, work to reduce the high-cost and low-nature scenarios we have been seeing. This will depend on progress made in a few key areas, including; reforming how regulators operate, with increased focus on place-based outcomes using constrained discretion; greater focus from Defra on facilitating infrastructure projects in the right locations, with more emphasis on proportionality and cost-effectiveness of outcomes for nature and economic development; and potentially reforming the Habitats Regulations and how they are applied, whilst ensuring consistency with international obligations.
