FIFTH SPECIAL REPORT
The Agriculture Committee has agreed to the following Special Report:
The Committee has received the following
memoranda from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
and the Environment Agency, constituting their respective Replies
to the Sixth Report from the Committee of this Session,
Flood and Coastal Defence, made to the House on 30
July 1998.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE AGRICULTURE SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT ON FLOOD AND COASTAL DEFENCE
Introduction
The Government welcomes the Agriculture Select
Committee's report as a valuable contribution to the debate on
a highly important subject.
The report contains a number of fundamental
and far reaching proposals which would affect not only the institutions
involved in flood and coastal defence, and their funding, but
also the general public who live or work in areas subject to flooding
or erosion, as well as wider conservation interests.
The Government notes that the Committee,
and many of those who gave evidence to it, support the broad thrust
of Government policy towards flood and coastal defence. This policy
encourages a strategic approach and recognises the need for thoroughly
evaluated, flexible and imaginative responses which take proper
account of natural processes. The Government also acknowledges
the Committee's concerns about the institutional and funding arrangements
that have evolved over many years. The Government recognises that
these arrangements are complex and that there are a large number
of bodies involved in delivering flood and coastal defence. However,
the arrangements provide an important measure of local democratic
input which the Government considers should be maintained. There
is nevertheless scope for enhancing the effectiveness of the arrangements,
and achieving greater coherence of delivery and standards, through
target setting and further development of active partnerships
between the different organisations and bodies involved; the Government
will work with operating authorities to facilitate such development.
The Government notes that this Report deliberately
does not set out to duplicate the work undertaken by the team
conducting the independent review of the Easter floods. The Government
agrees that this is right. It is separately considering that report,
which was published on 1 October 1998.
Against these summary comments, this memorandum
represents the Government's considered response to recommendations
in the report. The responses on the key themes in the report are
summarised in the "Conclusions" section at the end of
this memorandum.
Human intervention in flooding and erosion processes
(a) We are of the opinion that flood and coastal
defence policy cannot be sustained in the long term if it continues
to be founded on the practice of substantial human intervention
in the natural processes of flooding and erosion. Indeed, it is
of great concern to us that the legacy of flooding and erosional
problems arising from this practice - and the likely increase
in future of climatological and other environmental pressures
on the UK's ageing flood and coastal defence infrastructure -
might combine to present flood and coastal defence authorities
with insuperable difficulties (paragraph 9).
Significant areas of East Anglia, Somerset,
South Yorkshire and elsewhere depend on man made drainage and
flood defence systems which in some cases have been in place for
centuries. In addition, there are a number of coastal towns built
on naturally unstable geological formations which would disappear
without man made protection. A policy of more ready abandonment
would threaten significant assets in these areas.
The Government agrees with the Committee
that long term sustainability has to be central to the policy
and practice of flood and coastal defence. This key test is already
applied to all schemes put forward for Government grant, and underlies
our judgement of whether schemes are economically justified, technically
sound and environmentally acceptable. The Government already requires
operating authorities to consider a range of defence options including
managed realignment of the coastline where appropriate. Decisions
should be based on a range of considerations, including the long
term sustainability of each option, and the nature and value of
the assets that would be defended. A particular requirement is
that defence options should be consistent with natural processes,
on the basis of current understanding. That understanding continues
to be developed through relevant research. For example, the likely
impact of sea level rise is a consideration in decisions on flood
and coastal defence. Successive Governments have accepted that
the response to sea level rise should not be ever higher defences
if this commits future generations to unsustainable levels of
investment.
Our understanding of natural river and coastal
processes is developing. In the light of this, the Government
considers that there could be a greater role for less interventionist
measures such as beach recharge or realignment of defences, including
managed retreat and washland creation, as options for operating
authorities to consider within their strategies. The Government
does not accept the Committee's view that the difficulties we
face are insuperable. However, experience over many centuries
of flood and coastal defence measures in this country has demonstrated
that, when reviewed to reflect changing circumstances, risks and
knowledge, policies are effective. Also, if advantage is taken
of our better understanding of fluvial and coastal processes,
large areas of low-lying land such as the East Anglian Fens, the
Somerset Levels and South Yorkshire which depend on man-made drainage
and flood defence systems can continue to be given sustainable
protection for the foreseeable future.
The Government therefore concludes that present
policies, evolving as they do on the basis of a developing understanding
of natural processes, can continue to deliver sustainable flood
and coastal defences for the foreseeable future, without the need
for the widespread retreat that the report envisages.
Government's plans for flood and coastal defence
expenditure
(b) We are encouraged that the Government has
seen fit to plan to increase spending under the Comprehensive
Spending Review on flood defence, and has no immediate plans to
cut global levels of flood and coastal defence expenditure. From
the evidence we have received, it appears operating authorities
are hard enough pressed as it is to maintain vital local flood
and coastal defence programmes. We also commend the Government
on the introduction of three year budgets for flood and coastal
defence expenditure, which should assist strategic planning in
this area (paragraph 30).
The Government welcomes the Committee's comments.
The increased provision sends important signals to operating authorities
on the Government's priorities and should assist them in securing
appropriate contributions from other funding sources.
The changed policy context for flood and coastal
defence
(c) The lessened need for domestic agricultural
self-sufficiency, and the significant costs of farm policies encouraging
agricultural overproduction, need to be explicitly acknowledged
in the implementation of local level responses to flood defence
and coastal protection of agricultural land, including, where
appropriate, the managed realignment of the coastline. Suitable
compensation arrangements will need to be put in place (paragraph
40).
The majority of Government capital grant
is directed towards the protection of people and property, although
it should be noted that individual projects so targeted may also
provide protection to agricultural land. The appraisal of defence
options includes an economic valuation of the assets to be defended.
Present guidance for evaluating schemes is that the cost of agricultural
support should be excluded from the economic analysis to arrive
at an estimate of the national economic value of agricultural
land, thus valuing land on the same basis as other assets. The
revised guidance on project appraisal, referred to in the response
to recommendation (j), will reiterate the fundamentals and provide
the factors based on the most recent data.
The Government's response on compensation
is made in relation to recommendation (g) below.
(d) We believe that implementation of national
policy must now evolve to provide not only mitigation of the effects
of erosion and flooding, but also to embrace more holistic management
of our river systems and coastlines (paragraph 41).
The Government agrees that a wide range of
issues need to be considered in the implementation of national
policy. Holistic management is facilitated through policy initiatives
such as Shoreline Management Plans, Water Level Management Plans
and Local Environment Agency Plans. Also, the retention of the
natural ability of flood plains to store flood waters underlies
the Government's policy of discouraging inappropriate development
in these areas, as described in the response to recommendation
(t).
Survey of flood defences
(e) The Environment Agency is currently about
half-way through a national visual survey of the state of river
defences: this survey is expected to be completed in April 2000.
We appreciate the scale of the task facing the Agency - there
are 31,000 km of 'main river' alone for which it is responsible
- but we believe that additional resources need to be devoted
to this survey to ensure it is completed at the earliest possible
date (paragraph 44).
The Government shares the Committee's view
that priority should be given to this work. It is discussing completion
targets with the Environment Agency, with a view to guidance being
provided to RFDCs, which are responsible for making the necessary
resources available. The Government will also consider with other
flood and coastal defence operating authorities the arrangements
for carrying out surveys of defences, including private defences,
and how achievement should be monitored.
Existing funding arrangements for flood and coastal
defence
(f) Our opinion is that MAFF and the Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions should undertake
a joint review of the current mechanisms for public financing
of flood and coastal defence works to ensure that the funds made
available by both Departments do not prejudice decisions taken
by local authorities against the maintenance of existing infrastructure
and in favour of the construction of new works. The review should
include an evaluation of the existing maintenance heading of the
Standard Spending Assessment to assess whether it provides the
most effective mechanism for delivering funds for the maintenance
of flood and coastal defence works. We recognise the urgent need
for extensive renovation, and, in places, the replacement of existing
works over the next decade; but in order to safeguard life and
property in the long term, the piecemeal, reactive approach to
maintaining defence works, endemic in the current system, must
be replaced by a considered national strategy drawing the appropriate
balances between maintenance and new developments (paragraph 46).
The Government notes the Committee's comments
about the balance between maintenance and new or replacement works.
However, authorities are already required to consider whole life
costs for projects and strategic plans. The aim is always to gain
the best balance between maintenance, operating and capital costs.
In coming to decisions on the optimum solution, authorities are
required to consider a wide range of options, including low cost
capital schemes, and to determine which offer the overall best
value for money. The Government will nevertheless consider whether
further guidance is needed in relation to selection of options
and the balance between different types of expenditure.
The Government agrees that MAFF and DETR
should review the current financing mechanisms with a view to
ensuring they facilitate decisions which are consistent with the
national strategy.
The Government's response to recommendation
(l) deals with national strategy for flood and coastal defence.
(g) So far seemingly little attention has been
given by MAFF or the operating authorities to the setting aside
of contingency expenditure to address the financial ramifications
of the Ministry's more positive approach towards soft defence
and the managed realignment of the coast - for example, the likely
costs arising from compensation of land owners for loss of property
and land assets. If MAFF is genuine in its advocacy of a strategic,
sustainable approach to the UK coastline, action on these issues
cannot be put off (paragraph 47).
Except in limited circumstances, outlined
below, no compensation is payable to those affected by flooding
or erosion, including cases where it is decided not to defend
a particular area, or to undertake managed realignment. This approach,
adopted by successive Governments, is justified by current legislation
which provides operating authorities with permissive powers to
undertake flood and coastal defence works. Save for the specific
requirements of the Habitats Directive, there is no general obligation
to build or maintain defences either at all, or to a particular
standard. Consonant with this approach, the legislation also makes
no provision for compensation from public funds to persons whose
property or land are affected by erosion or flooding.
Payment is, however, possible where quantifiable
beneficial use arises. Thus land may be acquired for the construction
or maintenance of defences, and compensation paid for damage arising
expressly from such operations. Also, in some circumstances where
land seaward of justifiable new defences can be shown to contribute
to effective defence, whether locally or remotely, landowners
may be eligible for payment for depreciation or loss of land.
Finally, if a defence is realigned landward, land currently in
agricultural use may be considered for payments under agri-environment
schemes if a long term return to inter-tidal habitat fulfils the
relevant objectives.
As the Committee rightly points out, there
are financial ramifications in the use of soft defences which
rely on partial degradation to reduce wave energy. Extreme storms
can accelerate degradation and in considering soft defence options,
operating authorities are therefore encouraged to take account
of all costs, including those associated with extreme events.
To help in this appraisal, the Government is producing additional
project appraisal guidance on the use of risk assessment, thereby
facilitating the move towards more probabilistic based design
and decision making. Recognising that the costs of soft defences
can go beyond those planned for maintenance purposes, in 1992
the Government extended grant eligibility to cover the cost of
all beach management, including monitoring, recycling and replenishment
of beach materials under agreed long term plans. That change removed
any perceived difference between the grant aid treatment of beaches
and hard defences.
(h) Potentially, there are strong arguments
for the centralisation of all funding on flood and coastal defence
in a single national agency, which would enable spending to be
prioritised to fulfil national and regional objectives far more
effectively than can be achieved at present. However, we recognise
that, were this to come about, there would also be considerable
disbenefits in terms of the loss of political accountability,
especially at local and regional level, which is seen by some
as one of the existing system's enduring strengths. We therefore
urge the Government after proper consultation with operating authorities
radically to simplify the existing funding procedures for flood
and coastal defence activities, with the aim of achieving measurable
improvements in policy efficiency through cutting out unnecessary
bureaucracy and administration. As we are in favour of devolving
greater decision-making responsibility for flood and coastal defence
to the regional level, one possibility for consideration may be
to replace scheme-specific grant-in-aid from MAFF and the Welsh
Office with block grants, allocated to Regional Flood Defence
Committees or regional coastal groups, as appropriate (paragraph
51).
The Government agrees that there are arguments
in favour of centralising all funding through a single agency.
However, it also agrees that there would be considerable disbenefits
in loss of local accountability. On balance, the Government does
not agree that a greater role for RFDCs or regional coastal groups
would compensate for the loss of local democratic input contained
in the current structure. It will, nevertheless, be carrying out
the review of funding arrangements referred to in the response
to recommendation (f).
The Government is working with the Environment
Agency to define arrangements to allow introduction of block grant
to the Agency and, through it, to RFDCs to support the capital
programme.
Constraints on flood and coastal defence projects
of current funding procedures
(i) We favour the assumption by Regional Flood
Defence Committees and coastal groups of local authority competence
for flood and coastal defence. We recommend that MAFF liaise with
DETR to assess the difficulties confronting district councils
in funding this policy area. Furthermore, the ring-fence on local
and regional precepts should be removed to permit resources to
be used flexibly in the context of national, rather than local
priorities (paragraph 53).
As noted in the response to recommendation
(h), the Government does not propose making fundamental changes
to the present institutional arrangements. The question of ring
fencing will be considered in the review of the current funding
arrangements, referred to in response to recommendation (f).
| 
