Is the EA Fit for Purpose?

This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Is the EA Fit for Purpose?

After reading that my already low opinion of the EA has dropped even lower so in answer to the question, no it certainly isn't.


Was the club a member of the Angling trust, can Fish Legal sue the polluter?

AND YET>>>> you still find anglers whinging on about reasons NOT to join The TRUST.

Clearly there was a monumental cock up on the EA part in this instance.
But some questions come to mind for me re the other parties here.

1) Did the club do all it could itself?
Well it states in the piece the club knew the oxygen levels were low and down to 16% and time was of the essence to raise it, so why didn’t it take steps itself? And yes it can be done by several means quickly; by circulating the water by pump, buying and installing aerators, forcing bottled compress air or pure oxygen into the water. The cost of this measure would have been between £500-800 and most likely saved many of the fish in the water.

2) Given the amount of time it was taking the EA to make its mind up whether to prosecute or not, which would have been a criminal one and knowing that the HSE had successfully criminally prosecuted the polluting company for breaches of HAS. Why didn’t the ATr force their hand and start a private “criminal” prosecution on behalf of the Club? The wronged do have the right to bring such prosecutions if the prosecuting body won’t or can’t. Many then being picked up and taken over by the prosecuting body. In effect forcing their hand.

Whilst the ATr will I’m sure sue the polluter under civil law for compo on behalf of the club, it could have made huge capital and PR along with mega embarrassment for the woefully inactive EA re the criminal side.

Obviously in this incident there are problems with the the EA's conduct, but to submit "it is not fit for purpose" over one incident relating to fishing is a bit disingenuous. Is it something to do with cuts? Personally I don't have a problem with them, I have reported twice possible pollution incidents and they were down there that evening taking fish away for examination. Plus, whenever, I have seen a pollution report on TV, they are in there with aerators, taking fish away etc. And they do prosecute as far I know in a lot of cases. And I have never been really comfortable with the trusts idea of delivering "a double whammy" and prosecuting again. Most of these incidents are accidental or just neglect these days, not deliberate. They will become very unpopular with the general public in time if they keep up this stance.

I would tend to agree with Mark that is does seem somewhat disingenuous to make such a claim after this one incident, and if there are/were many others then the article should have mentioned those as well.

My dealingss with the EA have always been very agreeable having reported a pollution incident once (which they swiftly dealt with) and on 3 or 4 occasions when reporting out-of-season fishing on my local rivers.

markg said:

Obviously in this incident there are problems with the the EA's conduct, but to submit "it is not fit for purpose" over one incident relating to fishing is a bit disingenuous.

Click to expand...

It would appear to me from a previous FM news feature that this is a continuous problem with the EA:

Environment Agency Fails to Investigate Fish Kills

binka said:

It would appear to me from a previous FM news feature that this is a continuous problem with the EA:

Environment Agency Fails to Investigate Fish Kills

Click to expand...

Sort of self condemning and showing that they are not fit for purpose as far a angling goes.

Will it get worse with all the cut backs? I think it will, less service and no reduction in the licence fee.

It is one thing to call the EA into question, but altogether a very different thing to suggest an alternative.

Now, who would that be then, the Angling Trust?

That is never likely to happen . . . . .. is it?

We Anglers - Trusty types or otherwise - seem to be currently having a "Fash Bash", hitting on the far from perfect, soon to be pruned further, currently and fashionably "Boo hiss" EA. At our peril, I reckon and have long reckoned, as much as I dislike office wallahs and the like. The best, most / highly desirable, usually privately managed, usually "Spottie" waters, will always prosper (they're fished by a good number of our self-appointed Leaders and Voices (even Ambassadors) after all, though they tend to keep this quiet; the "cr@p" (the unwanted, unsexy, invariably Coarse stuff that most anglers have to get by on) will not. Careful what you wish for, what you subscribe to, just who and what you bash, as you might find yourself with no half-decent, widely accessible fishing and some very elusive people who you would really like to bash but find that you can't because they've run for the hills / better valleys and pulled up the piscatorial drawbridge. Best to try and work with the devil you know than the smooth-talking, string-pulling, that'll be five-hundred quid, tricksy one that you don't.

Peter Jacobs said:

It is one thing to call the EA into question, but altogether a very different thing to suggest an alternative.

Now, who would that be then, the Angling Trust?

That is never likely to happen . . . . .. is it?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure who is calling for an alternative to the EA?

I know that for my part I would like to see a properly functioning EA in the areas that the linked to report in my early post refers to, not an alternative.

The report also states that the utterly atrocious figures were gathered from data spanning six years so it clearly isn't a blip or anything related to any recent cut backs in funding, this instead appears to be a consistent failure.

It also makes me wonder what other skeletons are lying in the cupboard with reference to shocking performance figures, after all it appears to me that had Fish Legal not have lodged the FOI request and decided to investigate then these figures would maybe never have come to light.

I've nothing against the EA, I would just like to see them being more functional in an area which I see as critically important to anglers.

There are a lot of ideologues and politicians (of the Party not the Fishy variety) who want to blow the EA 1857 Indian Mutiny sepoy-style from the mouth of their very own cannon, these days, Binka. Did you see that local double-barrelled Somerset MP sounding off about the EA at the time of the Levels floods? That sort of blow-hard. Any resulting alternative (if the bashers and dismantlers could be bothered to cobble one together) would be private, very selective as to the areas and waters it looks after, and mostly mere "Jobs For The Boys" (think "Dyslexic" ex-public school dosser Idiot Son nepotism - and worse, if this is possible).

We need lots of bog-standard Wellies on the ground (fisheries people and fishers) now and in the future if fish and fishing are to prosper, not a few elegant-lifestyler Aigles.

A fully functional EA can only happen if funding is increased, more funds from rod licenses £27 is a pittance = just over 51.00 pence per week. So would you be willing to pay £50 or £75 per license (what’s that oh no you say). Charging other water users who pay nothing to use our waterways would be a step in the right direction.

As in all things funding only goes so far, and the EA have a vast amount of liabilities to cover. So what would you be wiling to pay for a full functional EA?

Kind regards
Ray

Totally agree Paul.

Privatisation via the creep creep (and managed leak) process.........

This present government is hell bent on privatising everything they can lay their (friends) dirty little hands on, the Post Office has gone, the NHS is already 60% there according to some 'analysts' so why not the EA before having another spell in opposition?



Fit for purpose........and the Angling Trust (incorporating Fish Legal) has the damn cheek to ask that question mg: mg: mg:


.

Ray Wood 1 said:

A fully functional EA can only happen if funding is increased, more funds from rod licenses £27 is a pittance = just over 51.00 pence per week. So would you be willing to pay £50 or £75 per license (what’s that oh no you say). Charging other water users who pay nothing to use our waterways would be a step in the right direction.

As in all things funding only goes so far, and the EA have a vast amount of liabilities to cover. So what would you be wiling to pay for a full functional EA?

Kind regards
Ray

Click to expand...

There is no guarantee that if licence fees were increased that the EA would start doing what they should be doing now as far as polluters go, it appears that they are incompetent and not prosecuting now so why would anything change?

I wholeheartedly agree with the first part of your post but to be fair Mick, with a figure as damning as just 16% of incidents being followed up with a proper assessment of dead wildlife once pollution occurs along with all of the other identified problems within the EA...

mick b said:

Fit for purpose........and the Angling Trust (incorporating Fish Legal) has the damn cheek to ask that question mg: mg: mg:

Click to expand...

I think Coco the Clown would be able to get away with the cheek to question them.

As Paul says in his inevitable way, "be careful what you wish for!" Those of us of a certain age well remember when the Poacher was the Gamekeeper as well under the Regional Water Authorities structure.
If you think the EA is bad now you need to take a walk back and read some of the historic records from that period; 1970s until 1985.
They were “not fit for purpose!” Their successors the NRA weren’t much better either.
Whilst the threat of privatisation and or break up of the EA is ever present, after all they are Quango and everybody and his dog hate those meddlesome, freeloaders, earning a living on the public purse, don’t they? Some more than most, who said, “we’ll be the greenest Govt ever!”
I don’t see them making an outright privatisation attack on the EA, more a “wither it on the vine” stealth move. Based on more Self-regulation for those who pollute. Using the argument that the vast majority of Companies that pollute now have their own industrial BS (insert whatever appropriate words you like to those letters) Standards to work to. Along with their Environmental, Social, Corporate responsible policies and documents in place, to govern their actions.
Therefore we now only need to have a “light touch” regulator to oversee this new Corporate Eden they have created.

That really would give the ATr something to squeal like a pig for!

I think that before this descends into an EA v's ATr/Fish Legal free for all it's worth remembering that we wouldn't be discussing these problems now if the ATr/Fish Legal had not identified and publicised them.

Back to the original question of whether the EA is fit for purpose I would have to say that, given the evidence available, they clearly aren't in this particular area of their work.

That doesn't mean to say that I would like to see an end to the EA, far from it in fact. I would just like to see effectiveness in areas where they perform so poorly so the question in my mind then becomes...

How do we achieve this?

Throw money at it?

Improve through efficiency the resources that are already in place?

Instate a higher independent body to police, audit and report on the performance of the EA?

I'm afraid that without knowing the causes for such failings then any proposed solution would be a stab in the dark and we need to ascertain these reasons before implementing a structure of improvement.

With respect Blinka that what the ATr do! And in doing that they gain Self-promotion from it.
What they have not done is offer solutions to the problem. All well and good spouting about it, but to be taken seriously you need to offer up solutions or be prepared to take action yourself. The latter being in the questions I asked above!

Given the huge cuts in the budget of the EA we may have to pay more for the service we want from the EA. For the sake of argument lets call it a “Legal percept” ring-fenced for fisheries only to take action against water polluters. Now you may say that’s what or license money’s for now. And you’d be right up to a point. Like it or not the EA does a Cost Benefit Analysis on taking cases to court. If that CBA comes out in the + column it goes to court. If it’s – it doesn’t! All the state prosecution agencies use something similar.
As money through cuts gets less, legal staff lose their jobs and greater workloads on those left, the bar get higher for + side.
Agree it shouldn’t do but that’s the reality of cuts! Now if there’s more money in the pot that’s ring-fenced then we bring the bar threshold down again and more cases go to court. And that’s the point, you pays your money you get what you want.

I very much doubt that many more efficiencies can be made in this regard as it’s into the bone now.

A higher authority? As a Quango it has that already; A Governance Board. However, they are appointed by the Govt of the day. Ergo they are political appointees stack in favour of the Govt of the day to do their bidding.
Again I agree it’s not right but until we the public bring about change to a democratic system of Board appointees that the way it is and will stay.
Given the supposed talent in the ATr, it strikes me that’s something they should be highlighting and campaigning on.

The bad one said:

With respect Blinka that what the ATr do! And in doing that they gain Self-promotion from it.
What they have not done is offer solutions to the problem. All well and good spouting about it, but to be taken seriously you need to offer up solutions or be prepared to take action yourself. The latter being in the questions I asked above!

Click to expand...

It's a fair point and there may well be a race for self justification but the fact remains that we as anglers have the choice of whether to offer money to the ATr, in the case of the EA we have no choice at all if we want to fish.

Again on the offering of solutions any suggestions would need to have the cause of the failings identified and from what I can see the only information we/they (the ATr) have is the headline information and the dire statistics, further information on the cause would surely have to come from a detailed, preferably independent investigation with the findings made readily available to the ATr before they could make any constructive recommendations.

The bad one said:

Given the huge cuts in the budget of the EA we may have to pay more for the service we want from the EA. For the sake of argument lets call it a “Legal percept” ring-fenced for fisheries only to take action against water polluters. Now you may say that’s what or license money’s for now. And you’d be right up to a point. Like it or not the EA does a Cost Benefit Analysis on taking cases to court. If that CBA comes out in the + column it goes to court. If it’s – it doesn’t! All the state prosecution agencies use something similar.
As money through cuts gets less, legal staff lose their jobs and greater workloads on those left, the bar get higher for + side.
Agree it shouldn’t do but that’s the reality of cuts! Now if there’s more money in the pot that’s ring-fenced then we bring the bar threshold down again and more cases go to court. And that’s the point, you pays your money you get what you want.

I very much doubt that many more efficiencies can be made in this regard as it’s into the bone now.

A higher authority? As a Quango it has that already; A Governance Board. However, they are appointed by the Govt of the day. Ergo they are political appointees stack in favour of the Govt of the day to do their bidding.
Again I agree it’s not right but until we the public bring about change to a democratic system of Board appointees that the way it is and will stay.
Given the supposed talent in the ATr, it strikes me that’s something they should be highlighting and campaigning on.

Click to expand...

Agree in principal with a lot of that but given that the report I'm referring to was published last year and based on data going back a further six years then this covers a period dating back to 2007, certainly beyond what I would term as "recent" cuts.

That's not to say strain on resources might not have been a factor back then but I would be interested to know what level of cuts were in place which severely affected the EA during that period in relation to how big an effect it had on those shocking statistics.

I can't help feeling that cost and funding is an issue but only as part of a bigger picture with possibly many more factors to blame... ?