House of Commons - Agriculture

Select Committee on Agriculture Sixth Report

III. CURRENT PROBLEMS WITH FLOOD AND COASTAL DEFENCE POLICIES

Social and environmental impacts of existing flood and coastal defence policies

96. Arguably, the negative consequences of flood and coastal defence policies have been greatest in the environmental and social spheres, partly because of the length of time over which human intervention in coastal and riverine sediment transport systems and ecosystems has taken place, and partly because of our inadequate scientific understanding of the human consequences of modifying these complex natural systems to suit societal needs. The appraisal procedure governing the approval of flood and coastal defence projects, PAGN, also largely discounts these two issues from consideration (see paragraphs 57 and 61).

97. In their evidence to us, the Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK commented that "flood and coastal defence has too often been synonymous with the destruction of wetland and coastal habitats. Ironically, it has also undermined the sustainability of defences and increased risks by encouraging development in flood plains and erosion zones and diminishing the capacity of the environment to adapt"[145]. According to the RSPB, other environmental impacts arising from existing flood defence policies include poor water quality, higher flood peaks, low summer water flow, and decreased biodiversity[146].

98. However, the Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK acknowledged that since MAFF's 1993 review, "highly commendable improvements[147]" had come about in national policy, and the rate of damage to the natural environment from defence schemes had reduced in the ensuing period[148]. We were gratified that MAFF and the Environment Agency are beginning to recognise flood defence needs and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive aims and, indeed, that they can be mutually supportive: the Environment Agency told us, for example, that with an 80 metre width of salt marsh fronting an eroding coast, coast defence costs would be of the order of £400 per metre; without the buffering effects of this habitat, these costs could rise to £5,000 per metre[149].

99. But while the principles of an environmentally sustainable policy have been enunciated by MAFF in practice this policy is still not apparent, according to witnesses[150]. English Nature also drew our attention to the need to replace the preoccupation with defence, inherent in the current policy, with the notion of management of coastal and riverine environments[151]. In our opinion, for this shift in emphasis to come about requires recognition of the dynamic nature of these systems, by granting adequate space for their natural evolution. Mr Andrew Lee of WWF-UK spoke of the need for coasts and rivers to have the "space in which to operate, the space for coasts to erode and accrete, the space for rivers to move around and flood waters to spread out where necessary...it is far more cost effective to recreate some of the space for natural processes to operate which can form part of flood defence than to continue a technological fix where we have ratcheted up the costs year on year through hard engineering"[152]. Similarly, we were told by the RSPB that "by allowing more flexibility back into the coastline, we will get [habitat] recolonisation"[153].

100. MAFF has instituted a number of mechanisms to reverse the environmental damage caused historically by flood defence works, principally drainage, and to bring about greater integration of environmental requirements into current policy. Some of these mechanisms were harshly criticised by witnesses for their shortcomings - for example, the Wildlife Trust Cumbria had "no faith" in the Ministry's Water Level Management Plans (WLMPs), which were characterised as being reactive, restrictive in scope and not adequately developed[154]. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK also censored WLMPs for being "fundamentally flawed by the false assumption that maintaining the status quo is acceptable[155]. As these plans are designed to safeguard the very best of the country's wetland and wildlife heritage, we believe there is an urgent need for MAFF to examine the existing WLMP framework to establish whether amendment is necessary.

101. While in 1996 the Ministry published its environmental code of practice for operating authorities[156], setting out best practice advice to these implementing organisations, we are concerned that more has not been done to put into effect an environmentally sustainable flood and coastal defence policy. This is disappointing, as we heard from witnesses of a range of options which, we believe, if implemented suitably, could immediately strengthen the economic and environmental sustainability of policy. At the coast, we heard powerful evidence for the development in carefully selected areas of the still largely experimental policy of managed realignment; while at the catchment level, we were told of the likely benefits of strategic source control measures and washlands creation in reducing the incidence and severity of flooding of the sort experienced over Easter 1998.

102. Managed realignment involves the withdrawal of coast defences at carefully selected points to allow the sea to encroach inland to a pre-determined set back line. This need only be a minor adjustment involving a small area of land, to confer major benefits to flood and coastal defence, as well as to the environment. There are clear limits on the applicability of this technique; not all stretches of the coastline will be appropriate. In their evidence to us, the RSPB estimated the total area of land in east Anglia which might be suitable to be approximately 6,300 hectares[157]. At present, managed realignment has been confined to experiments carried out on a relatively small scale[158], although we were was made aware of the example of Pagham Harbour on the south English coast, where an accidental breach in coast protection works in the last century led to the inundation of land below sea level, effectively bringing about a retreat in the coastline, and creating an area of high nature conservation value[159].

103. In their evidence to us, the National Farmers' Union expressed concerns regarding managed realignment, chiefly because this technique is most suited to the low-lying rapidly eroding east coast of England, where much of the country's Grade 1 agricultural land is concentrated. However, Mr John Lloyd Jones, Chairman of the Union's Parliamentary and Land Use Environment Committee, commented that the NFU was in favour of its introduction, "as long as it was done through...voluntary means and as long as the people affected were compensated in a proper manner"[160]. English Nature recognised that, if progress were to be made in developing the existing experimental approach into a fully fledged national mechanism, the "generally insufficient[161]" financial incentives currently on offer to farmers would have to raised.

104. On this point, the Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK suggested to us that such incentives should not be regarded as compensation: "if in the greater good it...make[s] sense to retreat someone's land, and in order to facilitate that the farmer receives some form of compensation, it should be perceived as an investment from a national point of view"[162]. In his evidence Mr Elliot Morley MP, Parliamentary Secretary (Commons) at MAFF, showed a reluctance to be drawn on this matter[163]; however, we are firmly convinced of the need to put in place a robust financial mechanism for the reimbursement of property holders and landowners whose assets are sacrificed for the wider interests of the community. This mechanism will ensure that a major step is made towards attaining the economically and environmentally sustainable coastal policy MAFF aspires to, while recognising the important role played by individuals in securing this wider social goal. In our opinion, the Ministry has postponed this task for too long and should investigate the practicalities of such a mechanism urgently.

105. We also believe considerably more could be done to end the reliance on hard engineered flood defences in urban areas, through the provision of source control and washlands creation. Source control seeks to slow the passage of water through catchments by introducing water-retaining habitats and features, such as wetlands and woodland, into farmed areas. Washlands might include fields which remain in productive agricultural use but where the crop grown would not be harmed by periodic flooding - for example, wet pasture. We were told that both options could assist in lessening the intensity of flash floods, and reducing the impact of downstream flooding[164]. In this way in RSPB's words "we...use natural processes and work with them rather than struggling against them, which is much harder and more expensive"[165]. The Environment Agency and MAFF must give greater priority within national policy to managed realignment, washlands creation and source control than has been the case hitherto. In each case, the total area of land which would be affected represents only a tiny fraction of the national land surface, and the associated costs could be diminished by implementing managed realignment of the coast and reorganisation of flood plains over long time-scales. At the same time, alterations to the planning system should be gradually phased in to deter inappropriate development on flood-prone land and in rapidly eroding coastal areas. Through advice and exhortation to relevant operating authorities, and the introduction of a reimbursement mechanism along the lines we have suggested, MAFF must ensure that over the next five years a start has been made on the national implementation of these techniques in appropriate locations.

Habitat creation

106. We welcomed Mr Morley's announcement to us that in future MAFF will safeguard all nature conservation sites, designated under the EU Habitats Directive, which are threatened by the sea, or recreate habitats elsewhere should the original site prove indefensible[166]. This new measure is intended to address the seemingly intractable problem of defending one set of nature conservation interests on an eroding coastline at the expense of another. At Brancaster in north Norfolk, for example, protection of freshwater marsh designated under the Directive can only be achieved at the expense of loss of intertidal habitat which is similarly designated. In our opinion, MAFF should ensure that where ever possible management of semi-natural habitat and habitat recreation objectives are fully integrated with those of flood and coastal defence. We strongly approve of MAFF's actions in this area, and urge the Ministry to bring forward proposals for implementing the new policy as soon as possible, including provisions for recreating wetland habitats elsewhere, and the means of monitoring policy progress.

145 Ev p110 Back

146 Ev p99 Back

147 Ev p110 Back

148 Ev p111 Back

149 Q 58; see also Q 317 Back

150 Ev p 110 Back

151 For example Ev p 156 Back

152 Q 290 Back

153 Q 336 Back

154 Appendix 16 Back

155 Ev p 111 Back

156 MAFF, 1996 Code of Practice on Environmental Procedures for Flood Defence Operating Authorities Back