III. CURRENT PROBLEMS WITH FLOOD AND COASTAL
DEFENCE POLICIES
Introduction
32. As sea levels rise due to global warming, so
flood defences will need to be raised to maintain existing standards
of defence. According to projections by the Intergovernmental
Panel for Climatic Change, sea levels around the UK are likely
to increase by 30cm over the next 50 years, although the effects
will vary regionally. Forward planning by operating authorities
in eastern and southern England is based on the need to increase
the crest heights of flood defences by 6mm per year, while in
western parts of the country defences will need to be raised by
4mm per year as a consequence of the upward movement of this region
relative to the UK land mass as a whole. Indeed, during our visit
to the Thames and Humber Estuaries we learnt that the rate of
sea level rise in these eastern areas was already approaching
4mm per year, chiefly as a result of the downward tilt of land
there.
33. In addition to the alterations in flood defence
provision which must be made in response to sea level rise, we
also received evidence from the Environment Agency[37]
and the Meteorological Office[38]
that an increase in the frequency and severity of storms cannot
be ruled out as the global climate changes in response to raised
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Should increased
storminess come about, the resulting increase in wave height and
frequency, and higher flood discharges in rivers, would place
greater demands on existing flood and coastal defences. Recent
flooding events on the mainland of Europe and in the UK, together
with measurements of sea level rise, indicate that these trends
may already be in evidence, implying that the long-term future
of the Government's flood defence strategy might have to be reappraised.
34. There are also other environmental changes which
might be expected to result in a reappraisal of national flood
and coastal defence strategy. These include a general decrease
in coastal and fluvial sediments, partly as a result of the gradual
natural reduction in the volume of sediments left after the last
glacial period, but also in response to the disturbance of natural
sedimentation processes by man-made defences designed to reduce
erosion[39]. In written
evidence, The Wildlife Trusts/WWF-UK estimated that sediment inputs
to the UK coastal environment had declined by 50 per cent over
the past 100 years as a direct result of cliff protection works[40].
This reduction in sediment will result in loss of beaches and
inter-tidal habitats, and increased likelihood of overtopping
of flood and coastal defences.
35. In contrast, we heard that in the East Anglian
Fens siltation at the head of the estuaries (arising partly from
reduction in fresh water discharges, and partly from rising sea
levels) was already retarding gravity drainage of major rivers,
a point corroborated by the National Farmers' Union in their evidence[41].
This is leading to significant increases in expenditure on the
maintenance of sluices and associated flood defence infrastructure,
and might prove to have substantial financial consequences in
the long term[42].
36. However, despite the threats posed by a warming
global climate, much of the evidence we heard suggested that the
most immediate source of increased risk from flood and erosion
arose, not from environmental and climatic change, but from a
heritage of hard engineered defence structures[43].
For example, the provision of coastal defences at Sea Palling
on the east Norfolk coast has caused a decrease in sediment availability
to the south, necessitating the construction of further defence
works there. In the case of inland river systems, we have heard
from witnesses that development on flood plains, including the
construction of hard flood defences, invariably results in the
loss of water storage in these areas which, during storm events,
increases downstream flood risk[44].
37. It is apparent that we are entering a period
of great environmental instability, which is likely to have serious
implications for UK flood and coastal defence provision in the
next century. A valid case could be made against this claim emphasising
the tentative nature of our current understanding of climatic
change, and underscoring the scientific uncertainties and environmental
contingencies at its heart: all of which would qualify the
usefulness of climate change projections in informing future
flood and coastal defence strategies[45].
Yet, in a maritime country such as ours, to discontinue the warnings
would be irresponsible, and we believe there are still likely
to be substantial financial, planning and administrative implications
for this policy from a changing climate, even if the more extreme
outcomes, outlined earlier, are not realised.
38. Overall, our impression from the evidence submitted
is that the present institutional framework for flood and coastal
defence policy is relatively robust and accountable. However,
some elements of the national legislative and administrative structure
for this policy area are now five decades old, and, because of
the changing policy context, must, in our opinion, be reformed.
It is apparent to us that there are significant gaps in the delivery
of national policy priorities at the local level, both at the
coast and inland, and, despite MAFF's continuing efforts to improve
the situation, the degree of co-ordination between operating authorities
remains patchy and inadequate. We are also concerned by the often
unnecessary distinction between flood and coastal defence activities,
the lack of integration of these activities with the UK planning
system, and the Ministry's seeming reluctance to address the long-term
implications arising from its endorsement of soft-engineered approaches
to flood and coastal defence.
39. While identifying these obstacles and barriers
within the present system, and in making recommendations as to
how they might be overcome, we would stress that we are in full
agreement with the Government's stated strategic aim, and do not
seek to question its appropriateness. Policy practitioners have
broadly welcomed recent MAFF-led changes aimed at improving the
long-term economic and environmental sustainability of policy.
In written evidence to the Committee, English Nature commented
on the "generally good" policy framework now in place,
and congratulated the Ministry on the "significant progress
made over recent years[46]",
while Hampshire and Isle of Wight LFDC claimed that "...the
strength of the current system lies in its provision of a strong
national policy direction with local responsibility and accountability
for implementation"[47].
40. Notwithstanding MAFF's laudable efforts to reform
the institutional and policy structure, in our opinion the changing
context for flood and coastal defence demands that further revisions
be made to the current system. Most of the land which is affected
by flood and coastal defence policy is agricultural and can often
be of high quality (see paragraph 103). Nevertheless, 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. As we say in paragraph 104, suitable compensation
arrangements will need to be put in place.
41. Taken together with the greater public policy
significance given to environmental protection and nature conservation,
and the importance already attached by the Government to soft
defence, 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. Hence we have sought
to provide recommendations which, while advancing the Government's
broad strategic aim, will simultaneously bring wider benefits
to coastal and river catchment systems.
37 Ev p 5 Back
38
Appendix 42 Back
39
Ev p 114, Ev p 162 Back
40
Ev p 113 Back
41
Ev p 143 Back
42
Q 542 Back
43
See for example Ev p 99 Back
44
Q 345; Ev p 182; Appendix 16 Back
45
A point made to us by the Environment Agency; see Q 3 Back
46
Ev p 156 Back
47
Appendix 7 Back
|
