APPENDIX 11
Memorandum submitted
by The National Association of Flood Defence Chairmen (F17)
1. The National Association of Flood Defence
Chairmen (NAFDC) is a body comprising the chairmen of the 10 Regional
Flood Defence Committees (RFDCs) and 17 Local Flood Defence Committees
(LFDCs). They meet biannually to review the overall working of
flood defence in England and Wales. In addition, the RFDC Chairmen
meet biannually with MAFF to review policy and funding matters,
and quarterly with the Environment Agency (EA) to review their
operational and supervisory work. The Chairmen are appointed by
MAFF. Their committees are so constituted that Local Authority
(LA) appointees have the voting majority. This ensures local democracy
in the approval of flood defence schemes in the committees' areas
and, at the national level, through NAFDC.
2. The multifaceted organisation of flood
defence in England and Wales serves both countries well. The area
at risk of flooding, approximately the size of Wales, is protected
to an agreed standard for an annual cost equivalent to 1 per cent
of the social security budget. The 1953 East Coast floods led
to large scale replacement of damaged defences, built to improved
standards, capable of withstanding more severe events. The flooding
incidents since then have occurred when the severity of the storm,
combined with high tides, have exceeded the design criteria, an
example being the exceptional rainfall which created the flooding
in the Midlands over the Easter weekend. It is estimated that
the damage caused by the 1953 event cost the country an estimated
£5 billion at today's prices. The improved defences have
withstood equivalent events on a number of occasions. Furthermore,
it is estimated that the annual national flood defence expenditure
of £400 million prevents damage from flooding estimated at
£1.6 billion per annum, a benefit/cost ratio of four.
The current organisation ensures that national
policy, expertise and standards benefit communities and industrial
infrastructure in local areas through Flood Defence Schemes, approved
by local committees. They are designed and operated by the EA
to alleviate flooding using engineering techniques appropriate
to the specific situation. The EA's other statutory requirements
ensure that committees achieve the best environmental, recreational,
visual and economic benefits available for local stakeholders,
thereby contributing to the social enhancement of the area.
All organisations are capable of greater efficiency
and Flood Defence is no exception. The environment in which it
operates is far from static and changing circumstances must be
accommodated. Currently the following aspects are worthy of consideration:
(a) Resources
(i) Skills: the EA (and the NRA before it)
has built up its skills in all aspects of flood defence management.
It has assimilated the skills needed for good project management
using expert consultants for much of the work. Its consultative
skills and good relationships with other environmental bodies
are a valuable asset in developing schemes. It is probably the
best organisation to cope with the new demands building up for
flood defence works.
(ii) Funding: a major part of the funding
for flood defence is paid from levy on Local Government and this
should mirror central funding. However, some Local Councils have
failed to meet increases in levy especially when the increase
exceeds the rate cap. This had led to a loss of £31.85 million
income to Flood Defence since 1989-90. It is hoped that the recent
DETR Consultative Papers on Local Government Finance will address
this situation and enable Flood Defence levies to be passed through.
Severe cuts in MAFF grant aid from £47 million in 1996-97
to a projected £31 million in 1997-98 (a reduction of 34
per cent) will lead to a slowdown in the capital programme and
reduced levels of maintenance in some committee areas. This is
more serious when it is recognised that substantial spending will
be required to improve defences to give adequate protection from
the effects of climate change. The return period calculation for
each defence falls consistently as each year's recorded statistics
are added. Up to date asset surveys reveal a very steep increase
in the cost of replacing ageing defence structures. Flood risks
will increase if there is not a large increase in central funding.
Greater flexibility in grant rates and GEC are required to enable
certain new, large schemes to be developed now. The ever increasing
lead time before completion adds greatly to the risk from rising
sea levels and increased storminess.
The recently introduced block grant and priority
assessment of the capital programme should yield savings in both
time and cost as well as a better concentration of expertise.
Nevertheless, it seems certain that the currently
envisaged programmes will not be sustainable without significant
extra funding, especially for new, large projects beyond the scope
of present resources.
(iii) The emergency work force of the EA
is a valuable asset to flood defence. Their specialist knowledge
in times of flood is essential. Their skills in maintenance, and
some capital works, is an expert contribution to overall standards.
Much efficiency of operation, particularly in a flood, would be
lost if this group were not in place.
(b) Coast Protection might usefully be integrated
into the operational sphere ef the EA with the transfer of the
necessary resources. This would make better use of the available
expertise, both for works and research. Regional stakeholders'
interests would be more democratically integrated by a liaison
with the RFDCs.
(c) Regional Flood Defence Committees operate
on river catchment areas. Optimum protection of life and property
can only be achieved by consideration of the whole river basin.
The interaction of tributarites, washlands, ground levels, flow
rates and tidal pressures contributes to the complex analysis
necessary to yield the most cost effective schemes. There is also
an interdependence between England and Wales as regards the border
rivers (see Annex I). The RFDCs are an efficient interface with
political boundaries.
(d) Flood defence schemes, especially the
larger ones, have a high level of local sensitivity to the community
and business (seaside and industrial areas) and the natural environment
(estuarial and rural fluvial). There are many local stakeholders
whose views need to be taken into account if the optimum benefits
are to be achieved from the schemes. The long consultation period,
and the need to comply with environmental legislation, adds significantly
to the cost of these schemes. The end product presents excellent
all round best value for money for communities, industry and environment.
(e) Non main river maintenance is the responsibility
of LAs and many stretches are in urgent need of maintenance and
improvement. The EA has the expertise to deal with this but neither
the LAs nor the RFDCs and LFDCs have the resources.
(f) Organisations work efficiently when
those who are in them have the will to achieve the best for them.
RFDCs and LFDCs have worked with three different operating authorities
in the past decade and have taken flood defence to new and better
levels of achievement. Sound flood defences are vital to communities,
business and the national economy. These committees with their
partial local funding, democratic control and accountabilitiy,
combined with their national funding and research through the
ministry and EA, remain ideally placed to make the best of new
developments and initiatives for the benefit of the people and
their environment.
|
