PROBLEMS
1. The development of LEAPs and strategic
coastal plans, a strategic approach which—to its credit—MAFF
has strongly emphasised, should be expected to result in more
multi-functional projects coming forward (eg an engineered wetland
which provides flood storage and water purification, and may also
yield recreational benefits and perhaps contribute to a Biodiversity
Action Plan). Funding, however, is still functionally based, even
within the Environment Agency. MAFF, for example, considers that
under existing flood defence legislation it can only contribute
to that proportion of the scheme cost which relates to flood alleviation
benefits. This is a real weakness of current systems.
2. Environmental enhancements are also particularly
problematic; again MAFF only considers that it can contribute
towards the costs of schemes which provide environmental enhancement
to the extent to which that enhancement is an inherent and integral
part of the basic scheme design, but not towards enhancements
which should be made in order to "balance" the adverse
inputs of the scheme. This means that funding such enhancements
must be found out of other budgets, which are now rarely available.
This points to a significant problem with legislation, not with
MAFF per se.
3. At the coast, and increasingly for rivers,
there is often no clearly superior environmental option. In particular,
the "do nothing" option often results in environmental
losses as well as the "do something" options also causing
environmental damages. For example, Figure 1 shows the rankings
given to six options, including the "do nothing" option,
by different experts concerned with ecological, archeological,
geological and geomorphological as well as the landscape features
of Hengistbury Head. It can be seen that the experts do not agree
as to whether or not it is desirable to allow erosion to continue
at the Head: the geomorphologist and geologist both want nothing
to be done whereas this is seen as the worst option by everyone
else. It is almost certainly not helpful to the discussion over
what option should be adopted to value (in economic terms) all
of the potential environmental impacts of the different options
as a way of determining which is the "environmentally best"
option. Often, such apparent disagreement results from a fragmented
approach to project appraisal. It can be avoided by enabling trade-offs
between interest groups through adopting a consensus-oriented
decision-making process, based on true socio-economic/environmental
assessment (Gardiner, 1991). However, this is not a system of
decision making that MAFF has so far encouraged, although some
broadening of the scope of decision making has been tested on
some occasions.
4. In other cases, the pressure for coast
protection works is to protect an environmentally important site
from change (eg Minsmere), and again this is not yet something
that MAFF has actively encouraged, owing to perhaps finding this
difficult to justify to the Treasury.
5. MAFF's scoring system set out in the
recently issued Grant Memorandum is a useful clarification of
priorities, but is more important to the determination of those
schemes which get funding, than the project appraisal guidelines.
This scoring system is weighted towards the renovation of urban
schemes which are approaching failure, but against those schemes,
including Water Level Management schemes, whose benefits are primarily
environmental.
6. Indeed, the scoring system set out in
the Grant Memorandum is actually more restrictive than the existing
PAGN guidelines since, effectively, schemes have to achieve a
benefit-cost ratio of 4:1 to achieve a high priority for funding.
This places great pressure upon valuing all impacts in economic
terms including those impacts which it is most problematic to
value and those where economic values may have the least meaning.
In addition, in agreeing the Habitats and Birds Directive the
UK has accepted an obligation to ensure the protection of such
sites. This overarching duty is not reflected in the scoring system
given in the Grant Memorandum. Again, we would wish to see MAFF
move in this direction.
7. Whilst MAFF accepts the UK obligations
under the Habitats Directive, we understand that it is less convinced
that it is appropriate that the costs of protecting such sites
should be borne by the MAFF budget rather than, for instance,
DETR's. This needs to be settled.
8. There is a danger that economic analysis
will become the tail that wags the dog; that, under pressure from
the Treasury, any concern which cannot be valued in economic terms
will be excluded from the decision process. MAFF must resist this.
The Treasury pressure is to attach an economic value to everything;
this risks the development of an "any number better than
no number" approach. The real problem is the failure of the
decision process to take adequate account of any issue which it
is either not currently possible to value in economic terms, or
which is outside of the scope of economic analysis. It tends to
force all considerations into an economic straitjacket, including
concerns which are not truly economic in nature; for example,
concerns about social equity and morality. MAFF, in being strongly
at the forefront of benefit-cost analysis in the past (as a means
of ensuring that its resources are effectively spent), needs to
take another step forward in this respect so as to make it clear
that economic evaluation does not just mean adding up the (simple)
things that are easily measured (but which may not be the most
important to society).
9. It is generally accepted that there are
reasons other than "use" value for conserving and enhancing
the environment; there is much less agreement both within the
economics profession and between economists and others as to whether
these reasons can, or ought to be, included in a benefit-cost
analysis. The existing procedures encourage the use of "nonuse"
values even though these values may be entirely spurious.
10. Flood hazard management and coastal
protection is actually delivered by those authorities which have
the responsibility for developing, designing, constructing and
maintaining schemes. The largest of these is the Environment Agency,
but those involved also include the coast protection authorities,
the IDBs and local authorities with responsibility for non-main
rivers. In addition, many schemes are actually dedsigned by consulting
engineers. It would be fair to say these different organisations
differ significantly in terms of their technical ability and in
the extent to which they are aware of, and have adopted, current
standards and practices. One measure of their performance is the
(still too high) proportion of submissions for which MAFF requires
further information before it is able to determine whether to
approve the scheme.
11. Therefore, MAFF has an important role
in disseminating current knowledge and good practice amongst these
practitioners (as it has pursued admirably in the past). This
it has done both through publications such as the Project Appraisal
Guidance Notes, the Code of Practice on the Environment and a
range of research reports and the Annual Conference, now in its
33rd year. However, it does not seem to have been entirely successful
even within the Environment Agency in this dissimination of best
practice role. It needs to do better here.
12. Some local authorities and IDBs will
only rarely be involved in developing, designing and developing
a scheme; it may be, therefore, that they have insufficient experience
and resources for keeping on the cutting edge of developing practices.
This needs to be addressed.
13. The Environment Agency has fallen into
a bad habit of talking about "scheme promotion"; it
is not, however, the Agency's function to promote schemes but
to determine whether any scheme is justified and to identify the
best option available. Using the term "scheme promotion"
tends to prejudge the entire issue, and displace both prevention
and maintenance activities from their central roles in achieving
sustainable development.
14. The Environment Agency only has responsibility
for "main rivers": the rationale for designating a watercourse
as a "main river" does not appear to be clear, or that
local authorities who have a responsibility for ordinary (non-main)
rivers are resourced for that role. Again, this needs to be addressed.
15. The construction of a scheme is only
a small part of a scheme; its maintenance is critical to the long-run
performance of that scheme. There are two concerns here: first,
whether adequate levels of maintenance are being undertaken to
safeguard the levels of capital investment that have been made.
Secondly, the extent to which the accepted principles of environmental
best practice for maintenance have now been adopted. It is not
clear that the answers to either question are known.
16. Whilst the principles of integrated
catchment and coastal zone management, and the strategic approach
that can be achieved thereby, are generally accepted, there are
institutional problems in applying this approach in practice.
Unfortunately, catchment and coastal zone boundaries, although
natural physical boundaries, are often quite arbitrary in relation
to historical and community boundaries. Consequently, local authorities
will not be reorganised to follow the same geographical borders
as catchments and coastal cells. In turn, this means that liaison
and cooperation across local authority borders, requires to be
promoted and funded. In particular, the existing regional structures
need to be strengthened. It is not clear how this is to be done
in the current structural arrangements for flood and coast defence.
17. Although the Rio Treaty includes public
participation as a defining characteristic of sustainable development,
it is notable that the existing statutory Ministerial guidance
to the Environment Agency (on how it is to interpret its duties
under sustainable development) makes no reference to public participation
at all. The only reference made to consultation is related to
flood alleviation. However, a strength of the present system overseen
by MAFF is the role of Regional Flood Defence Committees, which
allow at least some element of local democracy into the decision
process. At the very least, a continuation of the present centralising
tendency should be resisted. For example, the Environment Agency
anticipates being the catchment management authority for every
catchment in England and Wales should the draft EU Water Framework
Directive, which requires the introduction of such authorities
by 2010, be implemented in its present form. This anticipation
goes directly against the Principle of Subsidiarity. Similarly,
with the likely re-organisation of MAFF, one possibility being
floated is of a national coast protection authority which would
take over responsibility from the present multiple local coast
protection authorities. Again, this is a development which should
be resisted.
18. LEAPs (Local Environment Agency Plans)
are a developing opportunity. At present, the Environment Agency
goal in developing LEAPs seems largely to be the integration of
the different functions within the Agency. This is not good enough.
There are signs that these functions still see the development
of LEAPs as a peripheral activity rather than an essential step
towards more efficient, effective and environmentally sound management
of the catchment. Therefore, it may be too soon to expect that
the process of development of a LEAP will always engage the interested
parties outside of the Agency, particularly land use planners,
or involve public participation. Whilst there are political reasons
for calling LEAPs Local Environment Agency Plans rather than Local
Environment Action Plans, notably that the Agency does not have
a land use planning function and it is the responsibility of the
planning authorities to prepare plans, the ideal is an agreed
vision which is realised by the complementary plans of action
all interested bodies. Once the Agency has overcome its own internal
barriers, it should work towards this goal and MAFF and DETR should
both assist in this process (as the main policy drivers in this
field).
19. That it is some 45 years since there
was a major loss of life as the result of flooding in this country
risks promoting both complacency, and the assumption that this
has occurred because there is no risk rather than because of the
past investment in flood alleviation and coast protection. Flood
warning schemes are designed on the presumption that the requirement
is to reduce the loss of property rather than to protect life.
Local emergency planning does not usually recognise that there
will be conditions (eg in small, flashy catchments such as Lynmouth;
or behind major protection works and below high tide level) where
there is a significant risk to life and an evacuation plan is
necessary. We understand that MAFF is about to lay new stress
both on assessing the risk to life and on how floods are to be
managed which exceed the capacity of the defence works. However,
the response to that assessed risk and proposed response is largely
a matter for the Home Office (through the emergency planning function)
and the Environment Agency. If MAFF is to be sure that it can
implement its highest priority goal (flood warnings), it must
be more centrally involved here. Furthermore, we question whether
the plans and system are in place and maintained by regular practice,
in London for example, to mount a large-scale evacuation before
a predicted extreme flood. The lesson of emergency planning is
that emergency response is greatly enhanced by pre-planning and
practice.
20. Flood engineers have long believed that
the real justification for flood alleviation works is the alleviation
of the human suffering they cause, rather than the reduction of
financial losses. However, with the exception of the Towyn flood,
any organised response to floods has been unusual and usually
left to charitable groups such as the Lions and Rotary Clubs.
However, neither they nor the flood victims have had adequate
information on the best methods either to reduce the losses which
will be caused from a flood or to speed recovery afterwards. To
take a small example, carpets may be taken away for drying whereas
fitted carpets should be dried in-situ if they are not to shrink.
21. There is substantial evidence that all
floods leave a legacy of stress-related health effects, affecting
between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of the flood victims, depending
upon the severity of the flood. However, actions to support the
flood victims are rarely taken. MAFF still does not give due weight
to these "intangible" matters and risks underdesigning
flood alleviation works as a result.
22. We understand that, whilst MAFF emphasises
that planned realignment options should be considered in project
appraisals, in a significant number of cases this option is not
considered because it is described as being "politically
unacceptable". Climate change has simply added an emphasis
to the need to work with natural processes, and existing defence
lines in some cases do not do so but rather the reverse. It is
necessary to determine whether "politically unacceptable"
refers to issues which are socially important, but excluded from
the benefit-cost analysis framework, or a local reluctance to
adapt to changed circumstances.
23. Climate change, the coastal squeeze
on wetlands, the lower real value of agricultural land and the
desire to shift to management practices that by working with natural
processes are sustainable, are all encouraging more widespread
adoption of realignment of defence lines. This is commonly termed
"managed retreat" but there is generally nothing managed
about this retreat; it may be better termed "abandonment".
Since there people living and working on the land which is to
be abandoned to the sea (or river), they, not surprisingly, resist
being abandoned. Equally, such land risks progressive dereliction.
24. On the riparian side, flood alleviation
can be a treatment of the symptom and not of the cause; flooding
is the result of runoff from higher land. Changing land use, as
well as climate change, can greatly increase the flood risk downstream.
Brondesbury Villas in North London experienced flooding for some
100 years whenever a thunderstorm affected Highgate since the
sewers carrying the runoff from Highgate downhill surcharged at
Brondesbury Villas. Urbanisation, and the intensification of urban
development (including the conversion of front gardens to car
parking or land which was originally developed as large detached
houses to dense flatted accommodation), deforestation and, arguably,
changes in agricultural practices can all increase both the quantity
and speed of runoff.
25. However, we lack any coherent MAFF (or
DETR) policy for managing runoff. For example, in one large south
coast town, when the borough engineers acted as sewer agents for
the regional water authority, they had a rubber stamp made saying
"this plan is not approved by the Engineering Department".
When the Borough planners passed redevelopment proposals to the
engineering department for consultation, the engineers simply
stamped the proposal and sent it back to the planners who then
recommended approval to the Planning Committee. The planners argued
that development is a planning matter; flooding is a problem for
the Water Authority. The result was that sewer flooding became
so extensive in the Borough that a £35 million scheme was
proposed to alleviate the problem, at cost of about £2,000
per resident. The only control over development that the Engineers,
as agents of the Water Authority, could exert was to require the
provision of soakaways.
26. Quantity as well as quality of runoff
is a significant problem from agricultural land. There are strong
indications that changes in agricultural practice can intensify
runoff and consequently increase the risk of flooding downstream.
In some cases cultivation is being undertaken within centimetres
of the river bank, greatly increasing the risk of high sediment
input during rainfall events, from bank erosion. A buffer zone
policy in this context is urgently needed.
27. The shifts of responsibility post-privatisation
and the form of funding post-privatisation are likely to have
reduced the incentives for runoff management. The costs of Highway
drainage are borne by the domestic consumer, the water utilities
have largely ended the agency agreements with local authorities,
and, arguably, since the costs of providing the sort of resewering
scheme described above enter into a company's k factor, there
is an incentive to the sewerage company to promote resewering
rather than source control of runoff. This is unacceptable.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The local elements of the accountability
base for the structural arrangements for flood and coastal defence
are retained, as they match the needs of the problem being addressed.
2. More careful consideration is given to
the environmental values at risk in flood and coast defence works.
The statutory environmental consultees have, collectively, proposed
the adoption of the principle of Critical Natural Capital and
Constant Natural Assets. The essential distinction between the
two is the extent of which a habitat can be re-created elsewhere
and how quickly. We would urge the development by MAFF (and others)
of a clear definition of what forms of habitat can be treated
as Constant Natural Assets and the adoption of the US policy of
"No Net Loss" and Habitat banking for such habitats.
This could have significant environmental benefits in that it
may serve to take the pressure off Critical Natural Capital; whilst
loss of, or damage to, Critical Natural Capital would result in
a major argument, any loss or damage to Constant Natural Assets
could be replaced by "buying" a replacement site from
a Habitat bank. Most scheme promoters would probably prefer to
pay-out for a replacement site rather than become embroiled in
a major argument, particularly if the argument leads to objections
from the statutory consultees or NGOs such as the RSPB. Moreover,
since uncertainties about the success of re-creation of habitats
mean that the loss of one hectare should be balanced by the re-creation
of more than one hectare of equivalent habitat (currently, two
for one in the USA) by building in a sufficient safety margin,
the result could be expansion of the total area of the habitats
covered under the "No Net Loss" policy. But to operate
such a policy, the funding principles must also be established.
The Environment Agency is in a strong position to act as a habitat
banker in conjunction with English Nature, and were it able to
do so, this would give it a strong incentive to adopt scheme options
which would incidentally create new habitats which could then
"sell" on to others.
3. The legal requirement for environmental
assessment for some projects should be regarded as the minimum
for all flood and coast defence projects. Support for sustainable
development should enable the spirit of the law to be observed
by authorities, who should take the lead in demonstrating a model
approach to decision-making. Because the use of Multi-Criteria
Analysis does not guarantee that the best practicable environmental
option is revealed, the Grant Memorandum should clearly state
that a form of environmental assessment, including public participation
(as well as consensus-oriented, multi-functional teamwork involving
all social environmental and economic aspects) should form the
framework for decision-making from the initial scoping of the
issue. Again, MAFF could take the lead in this respect.
4. More attention is given to flood warning
arrangements and the potential for loss of life. With the exception
of transport accidents, as a hazard, flooding is not only both
the event most likely to cause significant loss of life, it also
has the potential to result in large losses of life in a single
event, particularly if dam failure is included. It is necessary
that areas where there is a significant threat to life through
flooding be identified and for such areas, emergency plans (including,
where necessary, plans for evacuation) should be developed. As
with CIMAH (Chemical Industry Major Hazards), those at risk should
be informed as to the nature of the risk and the actions they
should take in the event of a major flood. MAFF has a role here,
as yet not taken up.
5. More attention should be directed to
assisting small agencies within the current structure. The smaller
local authorities and IDBs might consider forming co-operative
hazard management departments so as to increase the opportunities
the adoption of current best practices whilst retaining local
control.
6. Compensation arrangements should be carefully
reviewed. Compensating land owners on land that is to be abandoned
is quite alien to the British political tradition but it would
ease both the political and social problems of implementing a
policy of selective coastal realignment and the process of converting
the existing land use to another one, such as saltmarshes. Such
an arrangement is current in Bavaria, if not the rest of Germany.
Quite imaginative use has been made to date of set-aside provisions
and other provisions to, in effect, buy up land which it is planned
to be "abandoned" for growing food crops for 20 years.
The scope for such actions requires extension.
7. Any tendency to further centralisation
of coast protection and into a national authority should be resisted.
The proposed regional government structures for England, along
with the devolved government for Wales, offer a potential framework
for strategic land use planning, including that of coastal zones
and catchments. This vehicle should be used, rather than inventing
other arrangements.
8. Sustainable development is predicated
on adequate public participation in projects, and this important
aspect should be given more encouragement from the highest policy
levels of government. The EU draft Water Framework Directive,
with its proposed requirement for catchment management bodies,
gives an opportunity for the development of co-operative advisory
groups involving local government and river corridor users within
the framework of the Welsh Assembly and possible regional structures
for England. These should be assisted by government.
9. The funding of single functions such
as flood defence needs to be reviewed and changed: it is contrary
to the principles of sustainable development and grossly inefficient
when compared with multi-functional projects. The flood defence
precept should be steadily replaced with a river and coastal management
precept embracing all aspects, with funding for special needs
such as wildlife or recreation being met without the need to be
associated with flood defence or any other function.
10. Insurance companies should be encouraged
to provide guidance to the public on how to minimise flood losses,
both as to the appropriate actions to take before a flood and
to speed recovery afterwards. This would reduce the problems of
legal liability for such advice which has inhibited other organisations
from providing that advice.
11. Much more attention needs to be given
to preventative policies. Given that a catchment's physical features,
such as topography and soils, are relatively constant, it is now
well-known that the level of flood risk is determined by the catchment's
land use, as well as the possible symptoms of climate change.
It is also established that the level or threshold of flooding
will have a major role in calculating the benefits to be gained
from flood alleviation. Modern hazard management should therefore
consider not only what action should be taken to alleviate the
rare floods, but also what can be done throughout the catchment
to stabilise the threshold through source control techniques,
and what conditions are required to ensure those techniques are
implemented. This is done through promoting appropriate development
planning policies at all levels, and adjusting legislation and
economic incentives for developers, the water utilities, local
and highway authorities and the Environment Agency alike. Clearly,
if a development is permissible without the measures of source
control desirable for downstream flood risk, then there should
be a mechanism for ensuring implementation of those measures at
no extra cost to the developer. Any extra cost should be viewed
as a flood defence preventative measure. MAFF could take the lead,
with the Environment Agency, in pursuing this thinking and its
implementation in the policy domain.
12. A strategic approach to managing runoff,
of treating the cause and not the consequence, is required. This
is likely to involve a multi-stranded and multi-agency approach.
Table 1 identifies possible management strategies for the different
sources of runoff, and great advance is currently being made in
both England and Scotland (in the current CIRIA research Project
555). There have been argued to be legal barriers to the adoption
of some forms of source control for new development (Howarth 1992;
CIRIA 1992) and it is desirable that early action be taken to
remove any such barriers particularly as limited studies have
suggested that source control is actually cheaper than conventional
surface water sewers (Ojolo 1994). The DETR, MAFF and the Welsh
Office should also give Planning Guidance to promote the adoption
of source control; such an opportunity might also be used to promote
the adoption of demand management for water supplies.
13. Better policies are needed on storm
sewer systems. Combined Sewer Overflows are recognised as frequently
resulting in a serious water quality problem for rivers; The House
of Commons Environment Committee recently proposed that CSOs be
designed so that they operate only with a frequency of 1 in 20
years. We are opposed to such a blanket requirement; instead the
Environment Agency should be empowered to levy a charge on the
sewerage company, where this charge broadly relates to the problem
caused by the discharge. A simple charging strategy would be the
charge depends upon the relationship between the maximum discharge
and the capacity of the channel. The cost burden of paying for
runoff from roads should be shifted to the Highways Authority
and tied to the discharge volumes so as to give an incentive for
some control of runoff at source.
Table 1
