1. EFFECTIVENESS
OF MAFF POLICY
ON FLOOD
AND COASTAL
DEFENCE
This evidence will support the "Ministry
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Welsh Office Policy which
is aimed at reducing the risks to people and the developed and
natural environment from flooding and coastal erosion by encouraging
the provision of technically, environmentally and economically
sound and sustainable defence measures".
The proactive stance taken by the Ministry in
issuing a framework of guidance through its series of publications
for the protection of the coastline is welcomed, together with
its financial contribution towards the development of sustainable
coastal defence policies which is particularly welcomed.
The statement in the first paragraph of the
press notice "current issues of concern" has not been
expanded upon. Generally those Local Authorities who are promoting
programmes of work feel they respond fully to MAFF guidance.
The following evidence is given in support of
this statement:
Following the lead given by Standing Conference
On Problems Associated With The Coastline (SCOPAC) the Ministry
has encouraged the creation of Coastal Groups around the country.
Local Authorities generally have a proven record in the delivery
of the Flood and Coast Protection service.
The production of Shoreline Management Plans
(SMPs) has been welcomed by both the local authorities and the
Environment Agency, although more work needs to be undertaken
particularly in protecting the natural environment and the integration
of SMPs in the Planning system.
A more acceptable approach would be for the MAFF
to openly state a commitment to protect the coastline by formally
adopting the policies in the SMPs. This would permit a more transparent
system at a regional level and permit the involvement of politicians
to agree and prioritise the allocation of resources more effectively.
This allocation would reflect local needs which are set against
a national policy context.
MAFF has issued draft guidance for preparation
of strategy studies that are now starting to be commissioned/implemented
by both local authorities and the Environment Agency. A similar
approach to that suggested for SMPs is required for strategy plans.
A better understanding of our coastal processes
is now available through plans and strategies, which are also
identifying the ongoing monitoring requirements. This is regarded
as essential when considering the implications of expected climatic
change and the future requirements for coastal defence.
The promotion of strategic research is now undertaken
on a co-ordinated regional basis. This already involves the Coastal
Groups working with the Environment Agency and other key organisations.
The decision making process is now subjected
to a national priority scoring system. This has highlighted national
requirements in terms of coast protection and flood defence provided
transparency to the levels of coastal protection and flood defence
funding. This process has both identified schemes required nationally
and also highlighted schemes which may not be sustainable as they
are predominantly reliant upon benefits rather than proven need.
The activities of the voluntary Coastal Groups
which promote co-ordination between local authorities, the Environment
Agency and other organisations, require continued encouragement
and support by MAFF. This support for the evolving policy on the
role of maritime local authorities and regional Coastal Groups
in promoting and managing coast protection programmes is essential
for their sustainability. MAFF's views and concerns on how local
authorities are performing are best addressed through the Coastal
Groups to ensure a more balanced and comprehensive discussion
is held on this important matter.
MAFF has found itself in a difficult and resource
constrained position with currently only £38 million in MAFF
grants available to local authorities in England and Wales.
The new "National Priority Score" system
demonstrates that the Government require approximately three times
the level of investment to secure to a reasonable level all local
authority frontages from coastal erosion and flooding. A similar
position can be demonstrated for frontages managed by the Environment
Agency. However, it is the case that the scoring system can lead
to rural authorities reacting to events, rather than planning
strategically. The threshold score is often only achievable as
a result of a defence failure. This is at variance with the strategic
approach required by the SMP's.
The current policy for the approval of schemes
requires operating authorities to allocate substantial resources
and funding to promote schemes without any real understanding
of MAFF's views on the proposal. This is as a result of MAFF's
reluctance to formally adopt SMP's or to give meaningful feedback
at a very early stage of scheme development. In view of the scale
and infrequency of expenditure relating to coastal defence, it
is necessary for Central Government to be involved.
MAFF has criticised local authorities for not
dealing with works associated with Category 4 schemes identified
in the Coast Protection Survey of England and Wales. The need
to decide what is required is accepted, but in some cases action
has not been taken because of the need to complete SMP's has delayed
the decision making.
Local authorities see the present arrangements
for implementing and funding of works as being fully accountable
to the public through their locally elected representatives. Any
substantial weakening or changes in the role of local authorities
in the future management of either flood and coast protection
will be seen as contrary to the powers conferred on local authorities
by the Coast Protection Act 1949.
2. EFFECTIVENESS
OF MAFF POLICY
ON SOCIAL,
ECONOMIC AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
MAFF, through its support of local authorities
and the Environment Agency in the preparation of the Shoreline
Management Plans (SMPs) has encouraged the identification of sustainable
coastal defence policies, which in turn also assist in directing
future development to most suitable locations. This approach reflects
the potential excessive cost involved in the protection of our
coastline in comparison to the level of benefits that are available.
The following issues need to be addressed:
The social benefits/dis-benefits cannot be assessed
easily under the present arrangements. Coastal defence policy
will also need to be reviewed against any significant environmental
impacts and any losses that could occur in and around our coastal
communities.
This process has begun to open up a dialogue
that many local politicians have felt uneasy with. It has however
begun a process that has caused many to reflect upon coast defence
strategies that no longer accept as the norm the "status
quo" future protection. This reflection will ultimately inform
the planning process and must be capable of accommodating such
advice.
The continuation of present policy objectives
will through the various plans lead to higher flooding/erosion
risks and particularly where there is not a clear economic argument
for protection of the coastal frontage. This policy may lead to
planning blight and the inability to obtain adequate insurance
cover to protect assets from loss or damage.
The production of SMPs has focused the attention
on a need for a national mechanism to allow payment of compensation
for lost habitats, land and communities in appropriate cases.
Guidance is required on this issue, and also on the acceptability
of schemes for cliff restoration where coast protection works
are considered at risk.
Local authorities through their elected Members,
have already had significant input into future policy when considering
the SMP process and more specifically, strategic defence options.
This local involvement and understanding is paramount in any development
of MAFF policy to ensure sustainable management solutions are
prepared that protect both rural and urban coastal communities
and are locally acceptable.
A more balanced system needs to be struck between
economic and environmental factors/impacts.
16 April 1998
