Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300
- 319)
TUESDAY 9 JUNE 1998
DR MIKE
CLARKE, MRS
NICOLA MELVILLE,
MR ANDREW
LEE AND
MR PAUL
MURBY
300. As well as the duties, are there also financial
carrots in the system to discourage the delivery bodies from pursuing
a policy of retreat and the greater use of natural systems?
(Dr Clarke) At the moment we would regard those carrots
as sticks. I have mentioned, for example, the problems with the
conventional cost benefit approach but, for example, and in our
evidence we have referred to this, the opportunities to bring
in agri-environment funding to actually help then deliver solutions
in terms of management, we feel at the moment there are opportunities
missed there. There may well be imaginative new routes in terms
of how insurance mechanisms operate; so, really, quite a fertile
field in that respect.
301. Could I ask you both but to start with
you, Dr Clarke, whether you are satisfied with the recommendations
contained in MAFF's new Code of Practice on environmental procedures
for flood defence operating authorities. Do you think that goes
far enough?
(Mrs Melville) I think the Code of Practice is a good
approach because it emphasises taking a strategic approach to
flood defence and starts to give operating authorities a way of
actually trying to assess the environmental impacts of schemes.
One of the problems though, particularly trying to take a more
strategic approach to flood defence planning—and what I
mean by that is within the river system, looking at a catchment
basis rather than just looking at individual schemes. If we have
a problem of flooding within an urban area, we need to look at
how we solve that problem and there might be solutions within
a catchment; and a similar idea within the coastal cell, looking
at other ways of solving those kinds of problems. However, there
is a problem with trying to implement that policy on the ground
at the moment. I think the people who made the coastal visit heard
about the Broads Alleviation Scheme. That is the first of the
more strategic approaches to flood defence planning. But in the
end we had to go back to, "Let's maintain the defences as
they are." The reason for that was the way they have to meet
secondary cost-benefit criteria, meant that options for things
like that, which might have additional benefits in terms of taking
up nutrients and that kind of thing as well, could not be considered
because over and above the flood and defence remit they did not
give them enough additional environmental benefit. This comes
down to the fundamental problem within the legislation, that flood
defence have to stick solely to a flood defence remit. It is similar
with water resources. They have to stick to a water resource remit.
This prevents this integration which people would like, on the
ground, to take a more strategic approach to these types of things.
302. Have you, Mr Murby and Mr Lee, anything
to add to that comment about the Code of Practice?
(Mr Lee) I would certainly stress that point about
duties. We do need to see a clear duty now to move from coastal
and flood defence to coastal and river management; for that explicitly
to include the conservation and restoration of natural habitats
as part of that. This is the key to the issue. That then sets
the right framework and sends the right signals to what institutional
arrangements are doing things on the ground.
303. In relation to the emphasis really on agricultural
land, as I understand it, 15 per cent of urban areas are presently
defended in one way or another and accrue benefits of £1.6
billion per year. Can we relax defences in areas like that? Clearly
not. If not, can we really deliver on the basis of a more natural
system?
(Mr Lee) The issue is whether we favour agricultural
land, or whether we favour the life and property issue. MAFF has
very properly highlighted that as the number one criteria, and
also putting an emphasis there on warning systems as well as flood
defence per se. What we are saying is that by being more
flexible in land use in coastal and river valleys, we can lessen
and attenuate the risks to urban areas, so there is a double benefit.
304. So you are saying, "Do not add to
the building in flood plains on those threatened coastal areas,"
but you are not advocating a process of managed retreat, presumably?
(Mr Lee) No. I have just moved from Brighton. I am
not advocating that Brighton should fall into the sea. We are
saying that it is right and proper that society should be able
to support the cost of protecting major urban areas which are
currently in flood plains and on the coast. Whether it is right
and proper for society, as a whole, to subsidise the costs of
private enterprise in the form of farming is another question.
Chairman: I think there are issues beyond farming
which are raised in those questions as well. Mr Hurst next.
Mr Hurst
305. This is a question to Mr Murby. You indicate
a lack of enthusiasm among farming communities for managed conservation
and managed retreat. Do you think there might be more enthusiasm
if we dealt with a definition of compensation: a consideration
of adequate compensation for loss of farming land to conservation?
(Mr Murby) I do not believe it is an issue of compensation.
There is an issue of lack of enthusiasm. That is perfectly understandable.
Although in the greater good it may make sense to retreat over
someone's land, from the individual's point of view it very rarely
does. Therefore, if in the greater good it does make sense to
retreat over 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. I am not quite
sure how we deal with this, but if the benefit is to society as
a whole— If it were not, we would not be advocating it.
306. I do not see the point. If you are going
to flood a farmer's land and he is going to lose fields on which
he grows crops, why should he not be compensated?
(Mr Murby) I think he should, Chairman. What is adequate
compensation, is perhaps a detail.
307. Do you think we ought to be thinking about
definition so we can make some rapid progress in reaching agreements,
rather than the conflict between agriculture and compensation.
If we had an adequate scheme, by which payments were made for
the surrender of land, then we may be able to achieve the objective
we are seeking.
(Mr Murby) Absolutely. What we are advocating is a
strategic approach in the greater interest. If there are losers
and winners within that, it seems only reasonable that the winners
should compensate the losers.
Mrs Organ
308. May I get a little bit of an evaluation
from you, in that you are saying that there should be a greater
use of natural systems and that they have a definite part to play
but that they take up space. However, you have commented on the
fact that, of course, because of the defence systems we have,
planners have been lulled into a sense of false security, and
that space has been developed and built on and now has people
living on it. I just wanted to investigate two things about that.
One is how effective do you think we are going to be, in the long
run, in being able to use the natural systems when so much of
the natural system does have urban areas or towns or villages
and population on it. We cannot go back to medieval times before
the Fens were drained and start all over again. The second question,
which ties in with that, is that you have been calling for a more
strategic approach. How much would you like to see the involvement
of local planning authorities as part of this, in the way that
you are advocating, because in order to use the natural systems
maybe farmers might have to forego their land. Are we actually
considering washing out a few villages?
(Mr Murby) Chairman, we have to acknowledge that we
have not a clean canvas. In some places, restoration of coastal
or fluvial habitats is either impossible because of geography,
or impossibly expensive and makes no sense because of the developments
we have made today. We have to live with that. We are not advocating
the removal of major infrastructure or development. What we are
saying is that in order to get ourselves out of this increasingly
unsustainable situation, and so as not to dig ourselves further
into the hole, we have to look for the opportunities where there
are opportunities. Certainly there are constraints. We must acknowledge
that. But there are opportunities. Those places are many. As regards
the local planning dimension, certainly none of this would work
without good integration with local planning. There is already
good advice from Government in the form of the PPG 20 on coastal
planning, and circulars from the Department of the Environment
on development in the risks zone (DoE Circular 30/92), which promote
development control in areas of risk. We simply need to strengthen
that and develop the links with flood and coastal defence management,
coastal management and river management. There may be a few places
where flood warning makes more sense than protection. RSPB, in
its evidence, has referred to insurance schemes in the States,
where private property owners can get insurance if they are flooded.
However, rather than rebuilding on-site, there can be rebuilding
elsewhere out of the risk area. Such schemes would begin to loosen
up the present situation. I am sure there is no easy answer to
this, we need not make the situation any worse, but take the opportunities
where we can and accept the constraints. One way of doing this
would be to set, as a clear priority, by partitioning and isolation
of important urban areas, and defend them to whatever is deemed
to be a reasonable standard of defence. Thereafter, to treat other
areas on merit within a national strategy. It seems ridiculous
to us that investment is made in the defence of agricultural land,
but some of the urban areas are not defended to an adequate degree.
If you are going to do anything other than protect the present
line, you need to isolate and protect important urban developments.
309. I am interested when you say many sites.
What sort of percentage are we talking about? Are we talking about
one or two isolated areas, or are we saying that, for example,
in the whole of the East Coast of Britain's coastal defence, maybe
30 per cent could be opened up in this new sustainable way? I
was more interested in the size of this.
(Mrs Melville) English Nature and the Environment
Agency have done a study, which is looking at the impact of bringing
back flood defences, and managed retreat. Also, the RSPB has done
its own study in looking at the East Anglian coastline, one of
the areas most threatened by sea level rise, where people in the
future have to look seriously at how we manage the situation.
They have identified quite large areas where we could possibly
do managed retreat. We set certain criteria. I have not actually
got the figure with me today, so if you needed that more detailed
evidence we could provide you with that type of evidence.
310. I would like that.
(Mrs Melville) And with a similar idea for inland.
People are now only starting to think how we can use the land
in a flood plain more effectively. There is space there. There
were washlands designed in the past we can start returning to,
and bring more washlands back into the landscape as well. Yes,
there is quite a lot of development in our flood plains. That
is something that has been raised in the Committee already and
people are concerned with that. However, the way to protect urban
areas is not to build defences higher and higher round about them
because, as everybody knows, there will be worst flooding in the
least defended area downstream. We have to take the opportunity
of how we can use the land in our flood plains more effectively.
That is likely to be agricultural land. How can we look at managing
that land use change? That is where we come to. How do we persuade
landowners to make a change from intensive deep-drained arable
to more grassland systems?
311. So you are advocating a more holistic approach
rather than a finger in a dyke at various hot spots?
(Mrs Melville) Yes, that is right.
Chairman
312. I am just a bit concerned, at Mr Murby's
evidence in particular, which talked about the dominance of agriculture,
agriculture, agriculture. On the East Coast last week we saw a
lot of urban areas, where large-scale development was taking place
on the back of coastal defences, of a private sector nature—housing,
leisure parks and so on—building up a long-term requirement.
I am a little concerned that you say that agriculture is the great
favourite and that towns are left undefended. It certainly is
not the case everywhere. Also, if we are to defend the towns,
I am not entirely clear, given the large-scale integrated nature
of the systems we are dealing with, how we can separate them from
agricultural interests anyhow. Do not the interests ride more
in tandem than you are suggesting?
(Mr Murby) In some places they do, Chairman, and in
many others they need not. In many they do. In many places the
justification for agricultural land rides on the back of urban
land within the same defence risk cell. That leaves very little
flexibility. We need to get ourselves out of that position. If
you want more flexibility, one way to do that would be to guarantee
the protection of the urban areas by partitioning them.
313. Have we not a natural system where we partition
off large areas?
(Mr Murby) I beg your pardon.
314. Have we not a natural system, coastal protection,
where large areas are exempt from that natural system?
(Mr Murby) Chairman, it is not a natural system that
we have. What we are advocating is the use, as far as is possible,
of natural functions within the system, of flood and coastal defence.
We do not have a natural system. And we are not going to have
any. If I can give an indication of the scale on a coastal level,
some figures to give you an indication. In the past thousand or
so years we have taken from the sea something like 100,000 hectares
of land. That is less than one-half of 1 per cent of the area
of Britain. It is a small amount. But it has created a very large
problem. None of us are advocating giving all that back to the
sea. It is not possible. What we are saying is that we have now
taken more than the system can reasonably give and continue to
provide the natural defence functions which we benefit from. We
have to start to look at restoring those functions if we are going
to move towards a genuinely, sustainable and cost-effective defence.
Mr Mitchell
315. It is just that where you chaps are coming
from is defence of habitat, is it not, primarily, rather than
an overview of the proper management of the system? Defence of
habitat is going to impose a partial approach. An approach of
"Let nature take its course," is what you are adopting;
saying it will be cheaper in the long run, more efficient. You
cannot take that approach with urban areas which have to be protected.
There is an increasing amount of development which also has to
be protected, so you are going to be letting nature take its course
on the other areas. In other words, a piecemeal approach is implicit
in your argument.
(Mr Lee) To some extent there has to be a piecemeal
approach because of history. I do not think anyone would deny
it. We are not saying, "Let nature takes its course."
What we are saying is look at situations where nature does take
its course. Let us use creatively, what we understand to be the
natural functions of natural coastlines and rivers, as part of
our overall management package. This would include: yes, continuing
to defend major built-up areas where those have already been developed.
Yes, much tougher and more stringent checks on future approvals
for development through links, the development control process.
Yes, looking creatively at where isolated properties are frankly
in the wrong place and creative solutions for getting us out of
that problem; for example, insurance schemes and other schemes.
Where there is space and where there is not the development, restoring
an element of the natural process to restore some of its functions,
which we could get back by having those natural habitats. That
is how the pieces fit together. It is not a purist solution. We
would not pretend that it is.
316. So in your order of priorities, agricultural
land comes fairly low down, does it not? The natural outcome of
letting nature take its course is the creation of large areas
of muddy swamps where birds can breed.
(Mr Lee) Which also has flood defence functions.
317. It also has coastal defence functions,
but we are living in tiny over-crowded islands where this might
be a luxury.
(Mr Lee) That is precisely why we are all agreeing
on the nature conservation point of view. We agree with MAFF's
priority of protecting life and property first. We do not see
that this should come into conflict with the restoration and conservation
of natural habitats.
(Dr Clarke) If I could say, we are not here about
the defence of wildlife habitats per se. If we had one
message it would be seeking a regime which recognises the multi-purpose
value of wetlands. If wetlands are allowed to function in a more
natural way, this is an economic advantage as well as a benefit
to wildlife. That is something, where possible, we should be seeking
to encourage, and getting a framework which encourages that. Clearly
there are areas—built development, big conurbations—where
there will be constraints on that system. Maybe over a period
of time and in some parts of the country, (maybe over a century
or so), we will see a shifting-out of housing stock which reflects
some of these pressures. The key thing we are looking for is for
you to pick up this multi-purpose value.
(Mr Murby) The Environment Agency's own figures say
that where there is an 80-metre width of salt marsh, the cost
of defence is £400 per metre. Where there is no salt marsh,
the cost of defence is £5,000 per metre.
Ms Keeble
318. I wanted to ask you a bit more about your
criticisms of the regional and local flood defence committees.
First, Mr Lee and Mr Murby. You say in para 5.15 of your evidence
that the local and regional decision making machinery is distorting
national policy and continues to perpetuate all distortions in
the balance of interests at the expense of wildlife. Distortions.
Those are agricultural interests, are they? That is what you implied
in the answer you gave to Andrew George.
(Mr Lee) I think it is a combination of things. I
sat on a regional flood defence committee for several years and
had some experience of this at first hand. If I had to sum it
up, maybe it is the wrong people answering the wrong questions
now. There is a series of issues. First, the processes we are
talking about are operating over a larger scale than the remit
of many of the people present on the committee, who are taking
a more parochial view because that is where they are coming from:
looking at a particular local authority area, for instance. We
need this much more dynamic creative approach, that looks at making
a change in one place and then compensating changes in land use
in another place; but the terms of reference are very narrowly
drawn on flood defence so this is not able to happen. Second,
there is a point about risks and benefits. The risks outside these
urban areas, the risks and costs of policy being borne by society
at large, the decisions in these committees are being taken by
a small and select group—very, very heavily steered and
advised by professional engineers—because of the way the
system works out; but the benefits are accruing, in some cases,
to private landowners. The system of precepts and ring-fenced
national funding prevents an analysis of wider priorities; so
if we were to ask a local authority in some cases whether it would
rather spend money on maintenance of a rural flood defence scheme
or employing primary schoolchildren teachers, we might get very
different answers. Therefore, those sorts of discussions cannot
happen.
319. You have given a very full and interesting
answer, which gives lots of pointers as to the kinds of things
we should be looking at. I want to try and get to what is the
why. You said previously, and also to Austin Mitchell,
that really your concern in a way is with the agricultural interests.
Those are the ones which have tended to predominate in the past.
Those are the ones which seem to have the most problematic views.
However, the kind of systems you have described and the structure
and pressures and so on, would not suggest that. It does not suggest
that the distortion is in favour of agriculture. Can you just
say what the end result is, and why you seem to think that it
is still distorted in favour of agriculture?
(Mr Lee) My perception would be that the system is
geared towards improving a constant stream of capital works projects,
many of which involve agricultural land as well as urban areas.
The whole culture, the way the committee works and advice given,
is steered to that. It is very, very difficult to open up discussion
in those fora on the wider alternative solution. I will give you
one practical example. One of the cases I was involved with, there
was a proposal to replace the flood banks on a stretch of river
in Sussex at a cost of £10 million. That money would provide
enough funding for 50 years' salt marsh recreation payment for
every farmer in the flood plain. Those sorts of looking at different
options and exploring the options are never able to happen because
of the constrictions on the way the committees work.
|
