Interview with Environment Agency Former Chief Executive, Sir James Bevan
During the summer months, there is nothing more relaxing than sitting out in the garden during the evening sunshine – unless you are surrounded by biting insects. This is made all the more difficult when trying to avoid negative environmental impacts that can be common side-effects of insect repellents. This How To provides some suggestions for keeping gardens as the wonderful relaxing space they should be, without literally costing the earth.
Do you feel like the quality of the environment has changed in your lifetime?
I think some things are better, and some things are worse. Let's start with what's worse. I was born in 1959: I think that’s self-evidently climate is getting worse, as well as biodiversity, which is in a real crisis. However, in terms of what is better, firstly, we have started to clean up quite a lot of damage that we have done over the last 250 years. The EA, which I used to lead, played a big role in cleaning up our water, soil, and air. By and large, all those things are better now than they were a few years ago in this country. I also think we now have a chance of successfully tackling the climate emergency, because we know what the problem is. We know what the solution is. We just need to do it. There is much more awareness among many people in the UK and around the world about the importance of the natural environment. That makes me optimistic that this might be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it.
In some of the recent talks. You stated yourself as an evidence-based optimist. Given that there's so much negative news on sewage pollution, emerging contaminants, and climate inaction, what evidence makes you an optimist?Firstly, that we know that nature comes back much quicker than we expect if we let it. Working with the EA, we’ve had to dig holes in the ground for flood or nature restoration schemes, and, astonishingly, you only need to leave those 6 months. When you come back, you can already see nature returning and restoring itself. By most measures, air, water and soil quality are better in this country than it was. That is down to a lot of regulatory work by various agencies and investment by water companies, businesses, and others. If you look at what we're doing now on climate, we now have a much better understanding of the problems and have some quite powerful interventions that can make a difference and turn things around.
I think some things are better, and some things are worse. Let's start with what's worse. I was born in 1959: I think that’s self-evidently climate is getting worse, as well as biodiversity, which is in a real crisis. However, in terms of what is better, firstly, we have started to clean up quite a lot of damage that we have done over the last 250 years. The EA, which I used to lead, played a big role in cleaning up our water, soil, and air. By and large, all those things are better now than they were a few years ago in this country. I also think we now have a chance of successfully tackling the climate emergency, because we know what the problem is. We know what the solution is. We just need to do it. There is much more awareness among many people in the UK and around the world about the importance of the natural environment. That makes me optimistic that this might be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it.
In some of the recent talks. You stated yourself as an evidence-based optimist. Given that there's so much negative news on sewage pollution, emerging contaminants, and climate inaction, what evidence makes you an optimist?Firstly, that we know that nature comes back much quicker than we expect if we let it. Working with the EA, we’ve had to dig holes in the ground for flood or nature restoration schemes, and, astonishingly, you only need to leave those 6 months. When you come back, you can already see nature returning and restoring itself. By most measures, air, water and soil quality are better in this country than it was. That is down to a lot of regulatory work by various agencies and investment by water companies, businesses, and others. If you look at what we're doing now on climate, we now have a much better understanding of the problems and have some quite powerful interventions that can make a difference and turn things around.
Before you were the chief of the EA you were the UK High Commissioner to India. It sounds like a very different position. Was it a big transition, and were there any perspectives that were useful?I guess a common thread running through my career is a motivation to make the world a better place. Most of what I did in the foreign office was about trying to make the world a better place. When I was high commissioner of India, which involved working with the Indian authorities and other local actors to try and make India a better place. And the EA, which I have led for the last seven and a half years, is about creating a better environment. So, there is that underlying common theme. Another common theme, and the point of the EA, is to make a difference. So, one of the things I like about Cranfield University is that research is not just to help you understand the world, but to help make it better. It's about creating real-world impact. When I was working in India in my previous career, it was all about what can we do that will make a real difference to real people on the ground. I guess. Lastly, I would say that in India and then the other places that I lived with overseas you do see up close first-hand some of the challenges that might otherwise be academic. So, you know, climate emergency. We all know that’s a big issue, but it wasn't, really, until I lived in India for a while that I saw the kind of real-world impacts on people who live in the Himalayas but also in the southern islands, the Bay of Bengal and the people in a Delhi. They're facing recordbreaking temperatures now, almost every year. That was a common thread.
When I moved from being a diplomat to being a leader of a non-departmental organisation, I had to learn a lot more about climate, the environment, water, nature etc. But some things, aren't all that different, ultimately, if you’re a High Commissioner or the Chief Executive, you are basically there to lead people to achieve outcomes. And that’s what I’ve spent most of my life doing.
It’s really good to hear that you had passion while you were there.It's hard not to. I’ve found the most inspirational thing in the developing countries I have worked in. All developing countries have a massive challenge and, in some ways, the challenges are bigger now than they used to be. But what I found in every single one of the places I lived and worked in, the Democratic Republic of Congo, various parts of Africa, Algeria, and India, there are inspirational people at all levels of society. Often, women, doing it for themselves, making astonishing changes to either their local circumstances or to the nation. And having seen that throughout my career, that's another reason why I’m optimistic about the future, because all around the world I see astonishing people doing astonishing things that are uplifting humanity.
English water quality has been trending upward for the last few decades, but more recently it's stalled at good status for only 40 % of English waterways. How did we achieve those improvements and why are we struggling to continue improving?It is better because we stopped putting most of our industrial pollution into rivers, untreated. Because the water companies, in particular, made massive investments to ensure that most of the pollution they treated did not end up in our rivers. Because a robust regulatory framework regulated what the water companies were doing, and the EA was given the resources necessary to affect that framework, so that people could be on the ground monitoring, and when required, holding polluters to account. And finally, because ordinary people wanted it to get better, putting pressure on politicians to demand higher standards and pass laws to achieve that.
So, why is it flatlining? Partly due to the way we measure water quality. 40% of rivers in England are in a good ecological status (the number that you get when you apply the Water Framework Directive (WFD) [EU-derived law]. The criteria that the UK helped write and which by and large is a very good directive. But the way the legislation is designed means for a river to reach good ecological status, it must pass a series of tests, and if they fail any one of those tests then they don't meet that status. So, we've got quite a lot of rivers which are passing most of the tests with an ecological status, and where you know you have thriving wildlife, which is a really good test. But they are still failing because of the technicality in the WFD. Many of the things that are causing rivers to fail under that directive are not going to change for a long time. For example, a common reason rivers fail is morphology. If humans have heavily modified the shape of the river, it will normally fail under the WFD criteria. And since most of our cities sit on rivers which have been heavily modified, it's going to be very hard, if not impossible, to restore those parts the rivers to their natural morphology. We need a more sophisticated framework. The other reason it's flatlining, is an increased pressure on our water ways. There are more people today, hence more sewage. We are getting increased stress on the environment from the climate emergency, which impacts water quality. Other sectors of economic activity, notably farming, are also not properly regulated in ways that would reduce the buildup of nutrients in rivers. If we really want all our waters to get to good status (and we should aspire to that), we need to have robust regulation of all the sectors that are using it, not just some. We need the resources to allow that regulation to be implemented, which costs money. And so, there is a choice to make. We can spend that money on the NHS. We can spend it on motorways. But we cannot spend it on all three at the same time.
One of the government's regular defences of their environmental track record, is that funding for the EA has increased in the last decade. Is it correct that this was for the funding of flood defences while permitting and enforcement activity faced significant budget cuts in the last decade?
Yes. You're absolutely right; the EA's budget is larger than it has ever been. It is also true that,
A. the EA has far more duties now than it ever did;
B. inflation has eroded quiet significantly the value of that budget and what the EA can do with it;
C. 90% of that budget is ringfenced for reducing the risks of flooding which is very important.
Whilst the budget that we've had for building flood defences has increased, including in real terms, the budget from the Government for doing the other main thing that the EA does, protecting the environment, in particular enforcing regulation, has declined, which had an impact on the EA's ability to both monitor and enforce regulations. The EA still dose a fantastic job with the resources that it has, but, ultimately, you get the environment you pay for. This doesn't have to mean all that extra money comes from the government because the fundamental principle should be the polluter pays. For example, if we want farming to have less impact on our waters.
We need to regulate farming more comprehensively. Farmers should pay for that because they are ultimately the polluter and so they get to pay the cost of monitoring and preventing that pollution. But that's a tough political judgement for any government. It's a tough life being a farmer. We want them to grow the food that we need. We don't want to put more burdens on them. On the other hand, we need to protect our rivers.
When I moved from being a diplomat to being a leader of a non-departmental organisation, I had to learn a lot more about climate, the environment, water, nature etc. But some things, aren't all that different, ultimately, if you’re a High Commissioner or the Chief Executive, you are basically there to lead people to achieve outcomes. And that’s what I’ve spent most of my life doing.
It’s really good to hear that you had passion while you were there.It's hard not to. I’ve found the most inspirational thing in the developing countries I have worked in. All developing countries have a massive challenge and, in some ways, the challenges are bigger now than they used to be. But what I found in every single one of the places I lived and worked in, the Democratic Republic of Congo, various parts of Africa, Algeria, and India, there are inspirational people at all levels of society. Often, women, doing it for themselves, making astonishing changes to either their local circumstances or to the nation. And having seen that throughout my career, that's another reason why I’m optimistic about the future, because all around the world I see astonishing people doing astonishing things that are uplifting humanity.
English water quality has been trending upward for the last few decades, but more recently it's stalled at good status for only 40 % of English waterways. How did we achieve those improvements and why are we struggling to continue improving?It is better because we stopped putting most of our industrial pollution into rivers, untreated. Because the water companies, in particular, made massive investments to ensure that most of the pollution they treated did not end up in our rivers. Because a robust regulatory framework regulated what the water companies were doing, and the EA was given the resources necessary to affect that framework, so that people could be on the ground monitoring, and when required, holding polluters to account. And finally, because ordinary people wanted it to get better, putting pressure on politicians to demand higher standards and pass laws to achieve that.
So, why is it flatlining? Partly due to the way we measure water quality. 40% of rivers in England are in a good ecological status (the number that you get when you apply the Water Framework Directive (WFD) [EU-derived law]. The criteria that the UK helped write and which by and large is a very good directive. But the way the legislation is designed means for a river to reach good ecological status, it must pass a series of tests, and if they fail any one of those tests then they don't meet that status. So, we've got quite a lot of rivers which are passing most of the tests with an ecological status, and where you know you have thriving wildlife, which is a really good test. But they are still failing because of the technicality in the WFD. Many of the things that are causing rivers to fail under that directive are not going to change for a long time. For example, a common reason rivers fail is morphology. If humans have heavily modified the shape of the river, it will normally fail under the WFD criteria. And since most of our cities sit on rivers which have been heavily modified, it's going to be very hard, if not impossible, to restore those parts the rivers to their natural morphology. We need a more sophisticated framework. The other reason it's flatlining, is an increased pressure on our water ways. There are more people today, hence more sewage. We are getting increased stress on the environment from the climate emergency, which impacts water quality. Other sectors of economic activity, notably farming, are also not properly regulated in ways that would reduce the buildup of nutrients in rivers. If we really want all our waters to get to good status (and we should aspire to that), we need to have robust regulation of all the sectors that are using it, not just some. We need the resources to allow that regulation to be implemented, which costs money. And so, there is a choice to make. We can spend that money on the NHS. We can spend it on motorways. But we cannot spend it on all three at the same time.
One of the government's regular defences of their environmental track record, is that funding for the EA has increased in the last decade. Is it correct that this was for the funding of flood defences while permitting and enforcement activity faced significant budget cuts in the last decade?
Yes. You're absolutely right; the EA's budget is larger than it has ever been. It is also true that,
A. the EA has far more duties now than it ever did;
B. inflation has eroded quiet significantly the value of that budget and what the EA can do with it;
C. 90% of that budget is ringfenced for reducing the risks of flooding which is very important.
Whilst the budget that we've had for building flood defences has increased, including in real terms, the budget from the Government for doing the other main thing that the EA does, protecting the environment, in particular enforcing regulation, has declined, which had an impact on the EA's ability to both monitor and enforce regulations. The EA still dose a fantastic job with the resources that it has, but, ultimately, you get the environment you pay for. This doesn't have to mean all that extra money comes from the government because the fundamental principle should be the polluter pays. For example, if we want farming to have less impact on our waters.
We need to regulate farming more comprehensively. Farmers should pay for that because they are ultimately the polluter and so they get to pay the cost of monitoring and preventing that pollution. But that's a tough political judgement for any government. It's a tough life being a farmer. We want them to grow the food that we need. We don't want to put more burdens on them. On the other hand, we need to protect our rivers.
Do you think some of our improvements in pollution are because we have exported our waste to other countries?
There is an issue about our international responsibility. I'm not going to say [as the former chief of the EA], that I think Britain should not be exporting waste. We do export certain kinds of waste lawfully. Some of that waste is used in incinerators in Europe and other waste is recycled in places like India. But personally, as I'm open to say, I don't think this is either sustainable or the right thing to do. Quite a lot of waste gets diverted or is illegally exported, and when it arrives in a third country isn't treated in the way we want.
And what about the heavy industries we rely on abroad?
One of the reasons that we do have a decent story to tell in terms of improved air, water, and soil quality is to do with the deindustrialisation of the UK, and development of a much more service-based economy than a manufacturing economy with relatively little heavy industry, which tends to be the most polluting and has certainly been a factor in improving our overall environmental record. But the biggest factor in terms of what our environment today is the standards that we set and that we are prepared to demand as a nation.
Emerging contaminants are an important area of research at the moment which include PFAS, pharmaceutical pollution, antibiotic-resistant genes (AMR), and microplastics among others. Are these on the EA’s radar right now?
Yes, all those things are. PFAS, AMR, and microplastics are issues that are not just on the EA’s radar, but are becoming increasingly important for the EA, the public, and therefore the government.
Why is that?
We now understand more about those materials and the consequences of them being in our water or our soils. We have already done the easy stuff: removed the really easy-to-prevent stuff from going into our waters, and now we're left with some hard-to-get-at things like PFAS or microplastics. But it's also going to be on the agenda because people are demanding better. When people realise what's going into their soil or water, they don't want it. That's a good thing. But it's a technical and political challenge. Are we prepared to pay as a society? Because either will pay for it through water bills going up, which is tough, or we will pay for it through increased taxation. In a way the technical issues are important, but easier to crack. Then the political and social issues.
There is an issue about our international responsibility. I'm not going to say [as the former chief of the EA], that I think Britain should not be exporting waste. We do export certain kinds of waste lawfully. Some of that waste is used in incinerators in Europe and other waste is recycled in places like India. But personally, as I'm open to say, I don't think this is either sustainable or the right thing to do. Quite a lot of waste gets diverted or is illegally exported, and when it arrives in a third country isn't treated in the way we want.
And what about the heavy industries we rely on abroad?
One of the reasons that we do have a decent story to tell in terms of improved air, water, and soil quality is to do with the deindustrialisation of the UK, and development of a much more service-based economy than a manufacturing economy with relatively little heavy industry, which tends to be the most polluting and has certainly been a factor in improving our overall environmental record. But the biggest factor in terms of what our environment today is the standards that we set and that we are prepared to demand as a nation.
Emerging contaminants are an important area of research at the moment which include PFAS, pharmaceutical pollution, antibiotic-resistant genes (AMR), and microplastics among others. Are these on the EA’s radar right now?
Yes, all those things are. PFAS, AMR, and microplastics are issues that are not just on the EA’s radar, but are becoming increasingly important for the EA, the public, and therefore the government.
Why is that?
We now understand more about those materials and the consequences of them being in our water or our soils. We have already done the easy stuff: removed the really easy-to-prevent stuff from going into our waters, and now we're left with some hard-to-get-at things like PFAS or microplastics. But it's also going to be on the agenda because people are demanding better. When people realise what's going into their soil or water, they don't want it. That's a good thing. But it's a technical and political challenge. Are we prepared to pay as a society? Because either will pay for it through water bills going up, which is tough, or we will pay for it through increased taxation. In a way the technical issues are important, but easier to crack. Then the political and social issues.
Do you have any advice for academics or the wider society on how they can play an active role in improving the environment to the level that people are demanding?
Yes! Be the change you want to see in the world. That was Gandhi’s phrase. I think we often fail to recognise our own power as individuals. Let’s take climate for example, all of us are a part of the problem. The way that we travel, what we eat, our homes, the amount of stuff that we have, where our pensions are invested, the people we vote for. All these things affect the climate for better or for worse, and each of us has agency in our own lives and things we can change, like how we get to work where we live, whether we keep the central heating at a certain level, how much stuff we need. My advice would be to recognise your own power and use it. The second thing I would say to anyone who's interested in creating a better place is, don't do it alone. We also have the power to build coalitions, whether that's just talking with our own family about how we can step more lightly on the earth, or creating a mass movement that lobbies the government to change their policy. We are more powerful than we think. Influencing others is a really interesting issue. It’s often, not the people or the ways that you think that will be most effective, that actually are the most effective. For example, the water companies are doing a lot of research in to how you get people to change their behaviour. Be it reducing water usage or stopping the flushing wet wipes down the loo. Their main finding is that the best way to make an impact on adults is not to advertise to them, but instead to go into school and talk to the kids. Because the kids go home and pester their parents and their grandparents to change. If your kid is telling you to change your behaviour, you're more likely to do it than if some big institution is.
Does that mean the outreach work universities do is actually really important?
Universities are also powerful. I think they're particularly powerful when they are interested, not just in understanding the world, but in changing it, and finding ways to affect the world that are new and innovative. But just having the right answer to the problem is not a sufficient condition to solve it. You also have to go out and build a coalition. You need to tell people that what they need to do to address that problem. I think going out and talking about what you do and the benefits that can have for communities. That’s really important.
There's a lot of young people who are passionate about tackling some of the big problems we face. For those focused on environmental issues, what do you think are the best careers that they might pursue?
I think there are many more options now than there were in my generation. One traditional form of influencing nature, climate, and environment is to work for a nongovernment organisation (NGO). A lot of big NGOs do great work in advocacy education, a whole bunch of things that we need to change the world. Some of them are more influential than others.
If I was a young person thinking about my career, I would go to work with an organisation that I felt was actually going to make a difference. So, I think if you want to go to the NGO world, you need to pick the right NGO. You might also want to think about going into the public service. Government, local authorities, and a whole bunch of other government organisations like the Environment Agency are interesting, and they're always looking for highly motivated and well educated, people to join them. Business can also be a fantastic option. More and more businesses are recognising the importance of sustainability. Both because it's the right thing to do and because it’s the smart thing to do. There's a big demand for graduates who understand climate sustainability and nature. And finally, there's academia, if you want to go out and learn more about a problem and find a solution to that problem.
Yes! Be the change you want to see in the world. That was Gandhi’s phrase. I think we often fail to recognise our own power as individuals. Let’s take climate for example, all of us are a part of the problem. The way that we travel, what we eat, our homes, the amount of stuff that we have, where our pensions are invested, the people we vote for. All these things affect the climate for better or for worse, and each of us has agency in our own lives and things we can change, like how we get to work where we live, whether we keep the central heating at a certain level, how much stuff we need. My advice would be to recognise your own power and use it. The second thing I would say to anyone who's interested in creating a better place is, don't do it alone. We also have the power to build coalitions, whether that's just talking with our own family about how we can step more lightly on the earth, or creating a mass movement that lobbies the government to change their policy. We are more powerful than we think. Influencing others is a really interesting issue. It’s often, not the people or the ways that you think that will be most effective, that actually are the most effective. For example, the water companies are doing a lot of research in to how you get people to change their behaviour. Be it reducing water usage or stopping the flushing wet wipes down the loo. Their main finding is that the best way to make an impact on adults is not to advertise to them, but instead to go into school and talk to the kids. Because the kids go home and pester their parents and their grandparents to change. If your kid is telling you to change your behaviour, you're more likely to do it than if some big institution is.
Does that mean the outreach work universities do is actually really important?
Universities are also powerful. I think they're particularly powerful when they are interested, not just in understanding the world, but in changing it, and finding ways to affect the world that are new and innovative. But just having the right answer to the problem is not a sufficient condition to solve it. You also have to go out and build a coalition. You need to tell people that what they need to do to address that problem. I think going out and talking about what you do and the benefits that can have for communities. That’s really important.
There's a lot of young people who are passionate about tackling some of the big problems we face. For those focused on environmental issues, what do you think are the best careers that they might pursue?
I think there are many more options now than there were in my generation. One traditional form of influencing nature, climate, and environment is to work for a nongovernment organisation (NGO). A lot of big NGOs do great work in advocacy education, a whole bunch of things that we need to change the world. Some of them are more influential than others.
If I was a young person thinking about my career, I would go to work with an organisation that I felt was actually going to make a difference. So, I think if you want to go to the NGO world, you need to pick the right NGO. You might also want to think about going into the public service. Government, local authorities, and a whole bunch of other government organisations like the Environment Agency are interesting, and they're always looking for highly motivated and well educated, people to join them. Business can also be a fantastic option. More and more businesses are recognising the importance of sustainability. Both because it's the right thing to do and because it’s the smart thing to do. There's a big demand for graduates who understand climate sustainability and nature. And finally, there's academia, if you want to go out and learn more about a problem and find a solution to that problem.
