Written evidence from University of Exeter (FFP 22)
1.1 Our research analysed the extent of both local actor collaboration in flood investment decision-making at the regional scale and the integration between different flood risk management (FRM) policies in England. In respect of the former, our research shows that current flood management funding arrangements often reflect centralised priorities, with evident scope apparent for greater local level input into investment priorities. With respect to the latter, current FRM and related sectoral policies also exhibit competing objectives, while coordinating mechanisms appear limited. However, emerging local scale collaborative initiatives, some supported by Defra and the Environment Agency, provide potentially innovative FRM approaches for future policy learning.
2.1 We welcome the opportunity provided by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Inquiry to present evidence from our research. Firstly, our research assessed how Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs), Defra and the Environment Agency’s mechanisms for allocating FRM funding provide a collaborative approach to flood management through involving local actors. Research was supported by the University of Exeter and the UK ESRC and conducted in 2014. Secondly, the submission draws upon ongoing research into integrated water resources management in England, supported by the Leverhulme Trust, and from the EU FP7-funded BASE project on climate change adaptation. This submission focuses on two ‘key topics’ considered by the Inquiry: Protecting communities and infrastructure; Managing water flows.
3.1 Our research examined how current funding arrangements are determined. An extensive interview programme was undertaken in two regions (the South West and East Anglia) to examine how RFCCs were integrating local preferences into FRM funding decision-making.
3.2 The Pitt Review (Cabinet Office 2008) into UK floods policy concluded that local actors should play a more significant part in funding decisions. This finding prompted the creation of the RFCCs, based on the previous Regional Flood Defence Committees, under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (Section 4, Articles 22-26). The Act provided a consultative role for the RFCCs in Environment Agency flood risk management decision-making (Article 23 (1), (2)), while also requiring the Agency to gain consent from RFCCs for their regional programmes and expenditure of regional revenues. Lead local flood authority actors, who largely comprise the Committees and contribute substantially to flood defence funding through the regional levies, should therefore possess a strong steer over investment targeting.
3.3 Our research (Benson et al. 2015a,b; Benson and Lorenzoni 2016) shows overwhelming support amongst Committee members for the dedication and professionalism of the Environment Agency. However, the funding system determined by the RFCCs appears complex, technical and arguably skewed towards central government and Agency priorities for flood investments. Funding for regional FRM is determined by Defra’s ‘outcome measures’ (OM) mechanism, which is employed to determine government grant-in-aid investment decisions that support national policy. Measures include cost-benefit analysis, protecting households from flooding and supporting habitats that contribute to EU water policy objectives. Where projects cannot demonstrate eligibility for full funding, they may still be financed under Flood and Coastal Resilience Partnership Funding through a local contribution. Lead local flood authority respondents interviewed expressed concern over the technical nature and the limited transparency of the OM system, meaning that their input may have been circumscribed. Some concern was also expressed by respondents that this system can prioritise Agency capital investments, while excluding locally supported FRM initiatives. Regional differences were also apparent: in East Anglia coastal flooding and related management were often overlooked in light of centralised priorities encouraging a focus on riverine flooding. Problematically, under current conditions of fiscal constraint, local flood authorities can also struggle to raise contributions. Yet our research suggests that the OM criteria do offer scope for better integrating local values and preferences into decision-making, while the process could be enhanced through additional training of participants and the sharing of best practice among RFCCs (Benson et al. 2015b).
3.4 In addition, while locally collaborative, the RFCCs provide limited public engagement on funding decisions. Our research shows that meetings are not widely publicised and little direct communication is provided to the public on how funding decisions are taken (although decisions are communicated to other groups and communities through informal networks). While this feature does not in itself influence the effectiveness of funding decisions in addressing flood risk, greater transparency of decision-making could enhance future FRM governance. Past flood events have seemingly been characterised by limited public understanding of flood defence funding allocations. Committees could therefore play an important future steering role in linking centralised government FRM policy with local flood risk management priorities but require greater localised input into decision-making and more public transparency.
4.1 Three significant features are evident from national FRM policies: governance incoherence; complexity in task allocation; and the emergence of locally collaborative responses. The latter trend, potentially, offers innovative governance models for policy learning to better manage future flood risk.
4.2 Current research, mapping institutional arrangements for FRM policy in England (Benson and Lorenzoni 2016; den Uyl and Russel 2015), has detected increasing institutional fragmentation and complexity through time. Current structures now comprise three main policy ‘pillars’ with a bearing on FRM: EU objectives for the Water Framework and Floods Directives; national Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) objectives; and local land use planning objectives under national planning policy. At a regional and sub-regional scale, implementation of the Floods Directive has led to the generation of flood risk assessments. These assessments also generally inform local flood risk management strategies developed by local authorities in response to requirements under the Flood and Water Management Act (ibid.). However, inter-institutional coordinating mechanisms between EU policy implementation and local strategies appear limited. Links with the third policy ‘pillar’ – local land use planning – also seem fragmented. Local planning authorities are obliged under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to account for flood risks in local plans through Strategic Flood Risk Assessments, using advice from the EA and Lead Local Flood Authorities, and conducting sequential and exception tests for new developments. National FCERM policy also now requires sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) for construction with drainage implications.
4.3 Our research points to areas of possible improvement. Some scope exists to further integrate national FRM with river basin planning through greater participation of Lead Local Flood Authorities, given their responsibilities for localised risk management. The Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs) could provide an increasingly important coordinating mechanism between these authorities and regional planning. However, entirely integrating local land use planning, which occurs at different scales and under parallel but often competing national policy objectives, may prove more problematic. Other actors such as IDBs (Internal Drainage Boards) and water companies also have different management objectives; the former concerned with managing flood risk and land drainage together, the latter with ensuring sewerage and water supply.
4.4 The local level, we argue, provides innovative FRM institutional arrangements that provide potential for wider policy learning. The UK has an effective network of local flood forums that provide valuable community-led responses. Some have emerged with central government and Agency support, including Defra’s Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder initiative. For example, the Cornwall Community Flood Forum has evolved from Flood Recovery Groups established by Cornwall Council and the Environment Agency after widespread flooding in 2010. The Forum, which has received funding from the Pathfinder Initiative, provides community-led support for enhancing the resilience of local flood risk management via a partnership approach comprising town councils, parish councils, businesses, community groups and citizens. The Community Resilience project has also supported local level community action in vulnerable areas of Norfolk such as Great Yarmouth. North Norfolk has also benefitted from Pathfinder Initiative funding, resulting in new approaches to managing adaptation and coastal change. Some of the processes piloted, such as property roll back, continue to be trialled by North Norfolk District Council.
March 2016
References
Benson, D., Lorenzoni, I. and Cook, H. (2015a) ‘Evaluating social learning in England flood risk management: an ‘individual-community interaction’ perspective’. Environmental Science & Policy, 55: 326-334.
Benson, D. Lorenzoni, I., and Langstaff, L. (2015b) An analysis of actor collaboration in the Regional Flood and Coastal Committees. Research report. Penryn: University of Exeter. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4814.3124
Benson, D. and Lorenzoni, I. (2016) ‘Climate change adaptation, flood risks and policy coherence in integrated water resources management in England.’ Regional Environmental Change. In press.
Cabinet Office (2008) The Pitt Review: Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods. Cabinet Office: London.
Den Uyl, R. and Russel, D. (2015) ‘Understanding decision making capacity (or the lack of it) to address climate change in vulnerable rural areas.’ Annual International Conference of Royal Geographical Society, Exeter, 1st September.