House of Commons - Agriculture - Fifth Special Report

Select Committee on Agriculture Fifth Special Report

THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AGRICULTURE SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT ON FLOOD AND COASTAL DEFENCE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Environment Agency believes that the Agriculture Select Committee Report is timely and has recognised the issues facing Flood Defence into the next Millennium. The report challenges all parties involved to deliver a more efficient, effective and consistent service to the public. This response refers to arrangements within England. The Welsh Assembly means that separate and distinctive arrangements will apply in Wales.

1.2 Since publication of the Select Committee's Report, the Agency has had discussions with officials from the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As a result we believe the comments in this response should be consistent with the Minister's response to the Committee. We welcome the constructive discussions that have been prompted by the Committee's report.

1.3 The Agency has incorporated comments from the Easter Flood Independent Review Team Report, where relevant. The Agency will publish an action plan in early November which addressees the recommendations of the Review Report, a copy of the action plan will be submitted to the Committee. The Easter Flood Report does not raise issues that conflict with the recommendations of the Agriculture Select Committee.

This response addresses the Committee's recommendations under the following headings:—

Administrative arrangements
Funding
Control of Development in the Floodplain
Sustainability

1.4 In each case we offer a view as to the most appropriate future approach, based upon our experience in operating under the present arrangements. Any changes will need to balance the benefits of local democratic links and involvement, with the need to maintain a critical mass in both expertise and capital procurement.

2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

Committee recommendations relating to the existing fragmentation of policy responsibility/institutional change
Recommendation (z)
"Our examination of the existing institutional arrangements for the delivery of flood and coastal defence policy has led us to reach a number of conclusions and recommendations designed to improve the formulation, implementation and financing of that policy. We would describe our central recommendations as the following:

(i) the establishment of a clear distinction between inland and coastal issues, reflected in the administrative arrangements
(ii) integrated management of flooding issues for main rivers non-main rivers and in Internal Drainage Board Areas
(iii) integrated management of flooding and erosion issues on the coast
(iv) strategic direction of policy at the national level by MAFF, as now, with the Environment Agency responsible for all flood and coastal defence issues in an advisory and supervisory role, and implementation of policy executed at a regional level.
Recommendation (o)
(o) We are firmly convinced that the functions of Local Flood Defence Committees and Internal Drainage Boards would be more appropriately discharged by Regional Flood Defence Committees, which should be responsible for the delivery of all inland flood defence policy nationally working under the guidance and supervision of the Environment Agency. The decision on how policy should be implemented in particular regions for example, by bodies represented within the RFDC, or by letting contracts would be the responsibility of the relevant Committee in consultation with the Environment Agency and, where appropriate, Regional Development Agencies. This does not necessarily imply the abolition of IDBs, although the decision whether or not to devolve duties relating to the implementation of inland flood defence policy would rest with the appropriate RFDC. They would remain in existence and would retain, at the very least, an important consultative role. We believe a higher proportion of RFDC funding should be provided from central Government, which need not necessarily involve higher expenditure: indeed, it might provide some savings though reducing the convoluted bureaucracy of the current financing system. An element of local level funding should, in our view, be retained for permissive projects agreed by the RFDC. Membership of RFDCs should be vetted to ensure they fully reflect stakeholder interests and that the levels of democratic accountability offered by the existing administrative arrangements are not in any way compromised (paragraph 76).
(e) The Environment Agency is currently about halfway 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).
Links with Recommendations (k), (l), (m), (p) and (s).

2.1 Policy

2.1.1 The Agency agrees that the strategic direction of national policy should, as now, be a responsibility of MAFF. However, we believe thought needs to be given as to how this policy direction is reliably given consistent effect across the country. We believe this could be achieved within the present organisational framework by a more systematic approach by MAFF and the Agency in making use of the Agency in an advisory and supervisory role.

2.2 Organisational Arrangements - the Coast

2.2.2 The proposal to separate the responsibilities for inland and for coastal defence between Flood Defence Committees and enhanced Coastal Groups represents a significant challenge to the policy of seeking integrating solutions to environmental problems.

2.2.3 If both were within the structure of the Agency, it would still risk duplication of effort and unavoidable additional administration (for instance, accounting for the use of funds separately). More significantly it would create an artificial separation between continuous geographic units. Significant examples are the Humber and Thames Estuaries, but also where numerous smaller rivers enter the sea. Additionally, the present Town & Country Planning system makes no such distinction between fluvial and tidal flood plains.

2.2.4 The Committees preferred structure recommends that the Agency has a national advisory and supervisory role with the implementation of policy through RFDC's for inland waters and Coastal Groups for the coast. These arrangements infer that the Agency would need to split its resources, with its coastal expertise being transferred to Maritime District Councils of which there are 88. Such a change could damage the buying power currently enjoyed by the Agency operating nationally for the whole capital programme. It would also put at risk the maintenance of a critical mass of expertise.

2.2.5 The Agency cannot therefore agree that there would be benefit in separating fluvial and coastal issues as proposed by the Committee.

2.2.6 To build on the progress made in recent years the Agency recommends that the Government should consider a review of the existing Coastal Groups to cover their number, boundaries and membership. The current boundaries are based on administrative boundaries rather than the sediment cell boundaries outlined in MAFF's Shoreline Management Plans. By encouraging closer working relationship with the Agency there would appear to be opportunities to maximise the potential for improved procurement arrangements and innovation eg Public Private Partnership Projects (see below in 2.5).

2.3 Organisational Arrangements - Rivers

2.3.2 The Agency inherited a wide diversity of approaches to which watercourses warranted main river status. As a minimum, some agreed criteria are required for rationalising this position to make it more clear to the public. Should Government decide that the distinction is no longer sensible, then it could mean that the Agency would take on the responsibility of the inland Local Authorities, over 300 in total. It is unlikely that the inland Local Authorities would be prepared to transfer sufficient resources to the Agency as in the case of the transfer of Waste responsibilities to the Agency in 1996. This could lead to a serious risk in the dilution of resources and would not achieve the desired improved delivery of national policy.

2.3.3 The Agency does not agree that there is a need for a radical change to the status of Internal Drainage Boards. These perform important and distinctive local services in the low lying and flat parts of the country. Their role is not wholly flood defence and drainage, as in summer there is a substantial job of water level management to support irrigation of farmland.

2.3.4 The Agency therefore believes IDBs should continue in their present form, but not necessarily their present number. The last ten years have seen a process of IDBs forming consortia and often amalgamating to give a smaller number of larger operating units. This has reduced costs and improved technical standards, albeit at the cost of reduced numbers of elected representatives across the country. The Agency believes this evolutionary approach has not yet run its course, and should continue.

2.3.5 In the last ten years there has been good progress in developing and exchanging operational best practice between the Agency and IDBs. The Agency is actively involved in the work of the Association of Drainage Authorities and this will continue.

2.4 Organisational Arrangements - Flood Defence Committees

2.4.2 The number, scale of responsibility and arrangements for local flood defence committees vary significantly around the country. The Agency believes it is timely to develop, with MAFF, guidelines for the scale of responsibility and for the role of Committees. The former would enable a rationalisation of the number of Committees. This would reduce bureaucracy and administration and enable the Agency to deliver a more cost effective nationally consistent service to the public.

2.4.3 Greater clarity of guidance on the role of Committees would focus on the balance to be struck between satisfying Ministerial priorities and local needs.

2.4.4 On balance the Agency is sympathetic to the recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be a review to a single tier of Regional Flood Defence Committees. However, if this is progressed the Agency believes the optimum arrangement for Flood Defence might involve more than one RFDC in some regions. This would depend upon the scaling criteria established with MAFF.

2.5 Partnership Approaches

2.5.2 In many instances it might be sensible for organisations with little in-house engineering expertise in flood defence to use the Agency as a commissioning agent or a provider of expert support. Where other organisations have a suitable in-house expertise, there would be potential benefit of the Agency making use of this.

2.5.3 There are examples of partnership and co-operation already, not least the strategy for flood defence around the Humber Estuary, which was recently published. There would appear to be scope for the existing Coastal Groups to nominate a lead organisation to promote the implementation of an integrated erosion control and flood defence strategy.

2.5.4 Delivery on the ground via a single co-ordinated series of contracts could offer improved value for money. This could be achieved now by voluntary consortium of the public bodies and major private owners. Such consortia might benefit from access to the Agency's developing expertise and innovation in capital procurement and commissioning

2.6 Supervisory Duty

2.6.2 In implementing the Government's Strategy and Policy for Flood Defence we believe all organisations involved need a clear understanding of the minimum standards they are expected to achieve in exercising what are normally permissive powers.

2.6.3 In developing its supervisory role, the Agency believes it should offer a clear priority sequence for the use of the resources available. For each major area of activity some simple, clear performance standards should be developed. The Agency believes these should be assessed, and after any necessary modification, endorsed by MAFF.

2.6.4 Periodically, but no less than once every five years, the Agency should publicly report on the performance of all the organisations involved in delivering elements of the Flood Defence service against the agreed standards.

2.6.5 The Independent Review Report also concludes that until and unless the Agency's Flood Defence powers relate to any river or watercourse, greater attention should be given to promoting awareness of the roles and responsibilities of all the relevant organisations. This awareness applies to the general public if they own a property adjacent to a river or other watercourse. The Agency is to shortly publish a national guide to the rights and responsibilities, of a riverside owner. The aim of the guide is to clarify the shared responsibilities, often misunderstood, between riparian landowners and other relevant bodies in protecting and improving the riverside environment.

2.6.6 As stated in the Agency's oral evidence, the Agency will complete a national visual survey of the state of river defences by April 2000. This commitment will be subject to the Regional Flood Defence Committees and Local Flood Defence Committees providing the necessary funding. This information will be used to formulate maintenance and capital investment programmes. The Agency will be working with Government to develop nationally consistent guidelines for asset management plans. Other flood and coastal defence operating authorities will be encouraged to participate in this process.

2.6.7 The Action Plan being developed as a result of the Easter Floods is explicitly addressing the need to improve the clarity of information available to the public, local authorities and emergency services.



© Parliamentary copyright 1998	Prepared 29 October 1998