APPENDIX 46
Memorandum submitted
by Mr Roger Lankester (F72)
Thank you very much indeed for the opportunity
to submit evidence to this inquiry at this late stage. Normally
my representations to select committees relate to Environment
Sub-Committee and I therefore do not receive notice of any inquiries
by Agriculture as a matter of course. I hope that you are able
to include my evidence, which I feel to be of value to this inquiry.
I should like to present what I would claim
to be a seaward perspective, from that of the marine environment
and leisure sailing. The particular aspect of the Committee's
inquiry which I would like to mainly address is:—
"the other social, economic and environmental
implications of existing flood and coastal defence policy, and
the sustainability of policy in social, economic and environmental
terms."
In this regard I enclose a copy of my recent
submission [not printed] to DETR in response to the green paper
"Access to the Open Countryside", the papers and letters
relating to Project Greensail [not printed], annotated colour
reprints and six copies of the EA publication "Meadows of
the Sea" [not printed] with the complementary video.
The coastal defence network, particularly in
East Anglia, exists largely to protect land which was once sea.
An activity commenced some centuries ago and given a boost in
the 17th and 18th centuries by Dutch mercenary engineers. At that
time the main means of transporting the agricultural product from
farms to the city was by coastal sea transport. This required
an extensive infrastructure of access points to and from the sea
connecting directly to the footpath and cart track network on
land, further explained and illustrated in the enclosures.
Although much of the public footpath network
on land has survived, now mainly for leisure purposes, many public
access points to and from the sea have not. There is no statutory
requirement to maintain and restore these facilities, unlike public
footpaths, when coastal defences are being rebuilt, realigned
or repaired, unless in private ownership. This has resulted in
environmental pressure from the few public facilities that remain.
The colour reprint illustrates the impenetrable
barrier of steel and concrete which now confronts leisure sailors
on long stretches of coastline and those who simply wish to anchor
their craft temporarily to come ashore for refreshment, stores
or to stretch one's legs during a coastal cruise, are therefore
severely disadvantaged. More public Maritime Access Points are
now desperately needed as the means of ensuring leisure sailing
and boating is environmentally sustainable, as illustrated in
the Greensail papers. Please also note the rubble pitching at
the base of the concrete embankment which creates foul conditions
for any craft taking the ground or when coming ashore in the yacht's
tender. It is worth noting that the footpath running on top of
the embankment has been maintained and improved as a statutory
requirement.
In environmental terms the most disastrous effect
of hard coastal defences is the drastic loss of salt marsh. One
hundred thousand hectares of salt marsh has been enclosed, mainly
to create agricultural land, in East Anglia alone. The consequences
are an impediment to natural geomorphological processes, erosion
of valuable wildlife habitat (salt marsh now erodes at a rate
of 2 per cent/annum) and loss of sheltered moorings for small
craft. These are illustrated in the Meadows of the Sea enclosures
and video.
Of particular note is the new concept of Managed
Retreat whereby the sea wall is set back to a new position allowing
incursion of seawater onto the previously enclosed but now surplus
agricultural land, resulting in the regeneration of the lost salt
marsh. With salt marsh fronting the new set back sea wall the
cost of flood protection is a fraction of what it once was, together
with all the resulting environmental benefits. Again this is well
illustrated in the Meadows of the Sea material.
A further advantage is the possible re-creation,
in appropriate places, of sheltered environmentally sustainable
moorings for small leisure craft, located within the new salt
marsh. An example of an existing facility of the type proposed,
with access to the boats by a series of timber walkways which
allows the salt marsh to evolve naturally, is enclosed. It can
also be seen in some of the shots in the Meadows of the Sea video.
However, despite these social, economic and
environmental advantages the current system of cost benefit analysis
by which the viability of individual projects is assessed, in
order to release funding from the MAFF Flood & Coastal Defence
budget, cannot take these factors into account. It is as if the
equation was already fixed so that the only outcome is ensuring
that expensive hard sea defences protecting farm land must be
provided. It seems almost unbelievable that we still have a system
that is biased towards the interests of coastal landowners where
their capital asset is protected at public expense even though
it may no longer be needed to grow food.
The Environment Agency has shown that salt marsh
used for yacht moorings will yield a financial return 1.6 times
that for an equivalent area of agricultural land, as well as providing
nursery areas for commercial fish species and for shellfish farming.
Yet all these are inadmissible in assessing the viability of managed
retreat projects. I enclose a letter received from the Flood &
Coastal Defence Division which illustrates this restrictive policy[not
printed].
The whole point of Project Greensail is to gain
the best return for UK citizens for the investment made in coastal
defences. Yacht moorings and new maritime access points etc, are
intended only to be undertaken as part of essential coastal defence
works. Once such a commitment to include these facilities is made
it may then be possible to attract further collateral funding
from Lottery sources, such as the Sports Council and the National
Heritage Memorial Fund. It is through this process of partnership
financing that any public expenditure can gain the multiple benefits
desired and be utilised in the most cost efficient way.
However, it requires a very different culture
to develop to that which currently exists within the MAFF Flood
& Coastal Defence financing structure, as the enclosed letter
testifies [not printed].
The narrowly defined criteria to release money
for coastal defences is clearly biased in favour of the existing
but now anachronistic policy which favours hard engineering options.
Now there is a surplus of agricultural land further inland, other
priorities at the coast should take precedence, especially on
the seaward side of the sea wall. In such circumstances it is
questionable that the agency, MAFF, solely responsible for maintaining
adequate food production, should now hold the national budget
for Flood & Coastal Defences.
Therefore the committee may be minded to recommend
the flood and coastal defence budget is held by a different agency.
The Environment Agency is the logical choice but as they also
plan Flood & Coastal Defences it could be construed as a conflict
of interest. A certain amount of creative tension may be considered
desirable.
The Crown Estate could also be considered as
they already hold in trust on behalf of the nation much of the
coastal maritime asset. They have enormous experience in managing
the marine estate, have a clear and unequivocal commitment to
such management in an environmentally sustainable way, have statutory
responsibilities to improve the value of the estate on behalf
of the nation and are likely to exercise a higher degree of impartiality
with respect to the multiple interests involved.
It is now absolutely clear that a cultural change
must take place regarding the purpose and financing of Flood &
Coastal Defences if all citizens are to have an equitable opportunity
to share in the common coastal marine resource.
The enclosures will no doubt make my evidence
somewhat protracted. If time is limited I would ask you to ensure
the committee at least see the Meadows of the Sea video and peruse
the Environment Agency publication as a priority.
I hope my evidence is informative and of interest
to the committee during their deliberations for this important
report and if further information is required please do not hesitate
to contact me.
12 June 1998
| 
