Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340
- 354)
TUESDAY 9 JUNE 1998
DR MIKE
CLARKE, MRS
NICOLA MELVILLE,
MR ANDREW
LEE AND
MR PAUL
MURBY
340. If I were to ask you to narrow that down
to one sentence, is that an endorsement of adequate compensation
for agricultural land lost to managed retreat?
(Mrs Melville) There are different options as to how
you manage the change in land use for different types of situations.
You should not narrow yourself down to saying compensation is
the only answer. Compensation for loss of productivity is one
answer, but there are different options which you can consider
for both inland and the coast. That includes things like the land
purchased compulsorily to enable landowners to have flexibility
to move elsewhere. The advantage of that over some of the more
agricultural and incentive-led schemes is that maybe you can get
the piece of land, which is going to do the best job in terms
of flood defence as well. The advantage of actually considering
compensation or land purchase is that if you were to take the
cost of an overall scheme, it might be of lower cost and more
cost-effective in the long term, than if you were to build an
engineering scheme to protect the piece of coast that is eroding
and which will require maintenance in a few years. Other types
of options, which you could also be looking at, are actually looking
at targeting some of the more agri-environment schemes more effectively.
There has been a very poor uptake of the salt marsh scheme, partly
through the way it has been promoted. Also, there could be ways
of actually getting flood defence shoreline management plans that
say, "This is the best place to retreat," and the agri-environment
schemes to hang together to support such proposals.
341. I do understand there are a number of options
but I am fearful, (being a supporter, in the right circumstances,
of managed retreat and the conservation consequences), that unless
there is more of a mutual interest between agriculture and the
conservation parties then, in fact, we are not going to make the
progress we require. I am still hesitant about the hesitancy
that I hear on the question of compensation for land use.
(Dr Clarke) You asked for a one-sentence reply. I
think it has to be "yes" in certain instances, but clearly
there is an array of mechanisms.
Chairman
342. Mr Lee wants to qualify that.
(Mr Lee) No, not at all. I just wanted to lend support
to what Mrs Melville said and to clarify, from our point of view,
that there is a big difference between the state compensating
for the loss of an asset, like a piece of land, where the state
may in fact buy the land and that may be a sensible option; and
the other rather more difficult issue, which is whether we should
be compensating for perceived lack of productive capacity, when
that productive capacity is only arrived at in the first place
by subsidy, production support and drainage paid for by the state.
There is a big difference there. But certainly there is no question
at all of the need for there to be mechanisms available in order
to have these discussions with farmers.
343. The one dilemma you face in the RSPB sometimes
is that the managed retreat actually involves the loss of fresh
water habitat adjacent to the coast. Can you share some of your
thinking about how you face up to the dilemma in principle?
(Dr Clarke) Most of our wetlands are, to some degree
or other, modified by man; indeed, some heavily. Effectively,
we are in a situation where the refuges for wildlife are principally
on some of those man-made habitats. Again, this is the key to—and
one of the Committee Members earlier referred to the need to take
a more integrated approach—we know conservation designations
cannot fossilise or sideline any more than, in many instances,
engineering can. There has to be an approach to this problem,
but that means looking at the catchment. It means taking the open
coast, the estuaries and the inland catchments together, not in
a piecemeal way, which is really how it has been approached to
date. It may well be that the opportunities to create habitats
are actually further up the flood plains, and that planning needs
to be linked into our response on the coast.
Ms Jones
344. Rather than building existing defences
higher, you suggest that new approaches should be integrated into
mainstream flood defence policies. You cited the examples of washland
creation and strategic source control. Could you elaborate for
us precisely what you mean by these two terms. How practical are
they to implement at a time when the United Kingdom is becoming
more, rather than less, urbanised?
(Mrs Melville) I suppose I have already outlined some
of the principles behind the creation of washland and the strategic
source control; the principle of strategic planning and making
best use of the land within the flood plain. That is really what
washland creation is about. It is not a new concept we have. Washlands
were created way back in the 17th century. But what we have found,
with the push towards more intensive agriculture, is that some
of that land has now been put into arable production. This makes
it very difficult to use that type of land effectively as a washland.
There are existing washlands we could be restoring. There is also
this idea that you look at the river and give it a little more
space, so you could be setting flood defences back. That does
not mean you are excluding agriculture from those areas. It might
mean you change them from an arable dominant situation to a more
grassland system. You look for a system which is going to deliver
that. There is this idea of designing washlands with wider benefits
from the outset, because there is already plenty of research evidence
to show the benefits of allowing rivers to flood onto the flood
plain. Apart from the fact that they have a flood alleviation,
there are the effects of removing sediment. That will save maintenance
of silted channels further downstream. There are also other reasons
why. Talking with flood defence engineers—and I really feel
that what we are doing is designing wetlands and flood plains
back into our landscape—we can use the skills of engineers
to do that. Indeed, there are already examples where people are
experimenting with setting flood defences back, as well as the
traditional off-line washlands. When it comes to strategic source
control, again this is not a new idea. Source control is seen
as a way of reducing run-off at source. That is what it really
means. In terms of development and roads, we already tend to do
this with concrete ponds, as you will see. It has been done at
the moment in rather a fragmented way. This has a flood risk in
some places because it could be that they are not designed; they
might not all have a capacity. This means that in a big flood
event they all over-top at the same time, and we end up with a
bigger flood peak. There needs to be more strategy about the way
we design these source control measures. There is an opportunity
again to design them with wider benefits, perhaps taking some
of the pollution that comes from agriculture, developed through
agencies as well. Then, from the agricultural point of view, if
you talk to people who were in our landscape before the bigger
drainage schemes came, they noticed that after land drainage became
more extensive, around the countryside people did get flash rivers,
more flooding. There is the idea of trying to retain some of that
agricultural run-off at source as well. I am not saying, "Let's
block up all drains and turn all agricultural land back to marshes,"
that is not what we are saying at all. We are saying, "Let's
be strategic about that. Let's look for the best places within
the landscape, both to take up nutrients from run-off and also
to manage our washland resources more effectively." You take
the water when it is raining and you store it, and you let it
back into the river during low flows. It is that idea of using
your catchment as a natural sponge, but we are not saying, "Change
all agricultural land back to wetlands," by any means.
345. What about the issue of urbanisation? That
you are increasing urbanisation?
(Mrs Melville) I agree with the Environment Agency
on that. We have to plan very carefully how much more development
we put within our flood plains, because it is decreasing our capacity
to be able to cope with the flood events such as we had at Easter.
I would agree that there needs to be much closer links with the
planning system and how the Environment Agency can influence the
planning of flood plains.
346. To what extent do you think you are actually
trying to create an area which is a natural aid to the flood defences?
To what extent do you think you are interfering with nature?
(Mrs Melville) Sorry. Can you repeat that.
347. When we toured various coastal defences,
we heard a lot that it is clearly man's efforts to stop the erosion
of the coast. There is a very clear opinion that perhaps we should
not actually be preventing that erosion. That this is the natural
course of events. The natural habitat would change and the birds
and wildlife in the area would change with it. To what extent
are we interfering with nature? Or to what extent are the schemes
you are proposing natural aids to flood defence?
(Mrs Melville) What we are proposing is that we know
we cannot go back in time. We cannot stop development on the coast
because the coast has already been developed in flood plains.
This is why I refer to the idea of designing wetlands back into
the landscape, because we cannot just do it in a piecemeal way.
We have to do it in a planned way now, so we know what type of
impact it is going to have. What we are intending to do is to
use natural processes and work with them rather than struggling
against them, which is a much harder effort and is more expensive.
(Dr Clarke) It is important to verify that the start
point is from a system, which is now very artificial both in the
flood plains and on the coast. In fact, because of that, we have
had big losses in bio-diversity terms, as well as the problems
we are now seeing in flood management. One of the key aims is
to start delivering our international obligations as part of flood
and coastal management. Those should be going hand in hand: that
delivery of conservation obligations as well as the social objectives.
Mrs Organ
348. Water level management plans. This is to
the RSPB. I am involved with you locally about the Walmore Common
one in Gloucestershire. You have made the suggestion that English
Nature has approved plans which will not raise existing environmental
values of some wetlands. We are all concerned about the December
deadline and some plans going through that maybe do not really
pass muster. Could you quickly give me your response to some evidence
you have had to support your claim, and what environmental obligations
must operating authorities fulfil, do you believe, in the implementation
of their plans?
(Mrs Melville) We have done some study on water management
plans, but by no means a comprehensive review of all plans. We
hope that statutory agencies will take that up as a matter of
course, because we want them to give us an indication of the way
they are going forward. This involved talking with operating authorities,
as well as our own staff involved in the plans. What we have found
is that MAFF does not actually have a responsibility for managing
the quality of the plans. They say they just want to see the plans
completed. This causes great problems and puts all the weight
on English Nature, to make sure that the quality of plans is adequate.
Meanwhile, there is a pressure from MAFF saying, "Why aren't
your plans finished on time?" What we would like to see is
a minimum standard that plans should meet. That MAFF should also
be supporting English Nature in terms of checking whether plans
are to standard, or do prevent detriment of the quality of habitat.
You have to be aware that water level management plans are solely
for important wetland habitats.
349. The minimal standards. Would you want an
input into what they would be?
(Mrs Melville) We have already had quite a lot of
discussions with various organisations about the types of standards.
We believe we have a system that we could implement, and we have
been working with English Nature to do that. It is just a matter
of telling the agencies generally, that they have to meet these
minimum standards.
Ms Keeble
350. One of the issues seems to be about the
structure of decision making; whether there should be a natural
flooding coastal defence agency which The Wildlife Trusts and
Wildlife Fund seem to come down in favour of. What do you see
the positive merits of it being? What would its strategic objectives
be? How would the funding be organised? Also, how would you ensure
that there was some local input, so that there was some local
accountability?
(Mr Lee) I think we have been very careful not to
say that we necessarily think a new agency per se is the
answer. We are fairly unconvinced that current arrangements can
deliver the goods. What we would say from our point of view is
that obviously it is going to be the view of government as to
what the best options are, but we would like to see certain things.
Those key things are the integration; the coast protection; flood
defence; river management. The ability to develop much stronger
links with development planning and other sorts of land use, so
that problems in one place can be addressed by solutions elsewhere.
Decision making at a level appropriate to issues and problems
discussed, which really means a regional level. Obviously, funding
and public accountability. That has to reflect that. Above all,
based on this very, very clear duty for coastal management and
river management and explicit restoration conservation.
351. I think we would all agree with those aims.
The problem is the structures which will deliver them. If the
Prime Minister were to ask you in tomorrow and say, "What
structure would you advise on," what would you say?
(Mr Lee) Well—
352. If you said what you have just said, he
would probably say, "Go away and come back with an answer."
What would you say?
(Mr Lee) From my point of view, and obviously RSPB
will have their own view, I do not think we are absolutely clear
that we can come down on the side of one or other option. It has
got to be all within the Environment Agency, it is changing processes
and it is very, very large; or a new agency, which raises another
set of questions. I do not feel, at this stage, that we can come
down on one side or another. So, yes, I am afraid that would be
my answer.
353. And the RSPB?
(Dr Clarke) I do not know that we can give you a clear-cut
answer either. The key point is that we are comparing a current
situation against new. We are not happy with the current situation.
One vital thing is that whatever government departments and agency
is charged with responsibilities and the duties they recognise,
that one of those duties is in relation to the United Kingdom's
international conservation obligations. A lot flows through the
system once that is recognised. Frankly, if that was in place
now, the analysis we would be presenting to you would be a lot
more favourable than it currently is. It is actually a difficult
comparison to make when we have that uneven situation.
Chairman
354. Just drawing this to a conclusion, I cannot
resist asking you both one last question, bearing in mind the
spectacularly unhelpful nature of those last answers! In 1992,
when the WWF gave evidence to the Environment Select Committee
on this matter, you called for a national strategy based on one
lead agency. The RSPB did the same thing in evidence to that inquiry.
You seem to have changed your minds.
(Mr Lee) We are still saying a lead agency, but the
question we are ducking is exactly what that agency would look
like.
Chairman: You are frankly admitting what question
you are ducking. We are very grateful to you. We must draw things
to a conclusion now. Thank you for a very interesting time. Thank
you also to your colleagues, both at The Wildlife Trusts and the
RSPB, who came with us last week on our visit to the East Coast,
which we greatly valued. Thank you very much indeed. We will be
writing to you on one or two points which we have not covered.
|
