INTRODUCTION

  1.  The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Environment Sub-committee's inquiry into the work of the Environment Agency.

  2.  The Wildlife Trusts are a national network of 47 local Wildlife Trusts with 2,300 nature reserves and a membership of 320,000 people. The Trusts advocate the conservation of biodiversity and good environmental standards for both people and wildlife at a local and national level. WWF-UK (World Wide Fund For Nature) works on a wide range of environmental issues in the UK and around the world. WWF's philosophy is to conserve nature—wild species and wild places—by promoting the sustainable use of natural resources to meet the needs of current and future generations. WWF's policy objectives stem from its world-wide experience in the field.

  3.  The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK are now working together in areas of common concern in the marine and coastal environment under a Joint Marine Programme. The role of flood and coastal defence in environmental management has been a substantial theme in the work of the partnership in recent years, thus our joint submission on this topic.

  4.  The flood defence management and the conservation of wetland habitats and wildlife are inseparable. Many ecologically important freshwater and coastal habitats depend on flooding to maintain their value. The reduction of flood risk to people and the conservation of wetland landscapes need not be at odds. Natural wetlands, both tidal and fluvial, and coastal habitats provide important flood defence services. They moderate the effects of floods and wave energy defence structures, thus reducing the risks to people and property. Wetland habitats also serve many other highly valuable socio-economic and ecological functions. Furthermore, natural systems, by definition, are taxpayer-friendly—they maintain themselves at no cost to the Treasury. In contrast, every pound invested on capital works for land drainage and flood defence has ratcheted up, in perpetuity, the maintenance costs of an increasingly artificial and unsustainable system.

  5.  The Environment Agency has powers to carry out flood and sea defence works and a general supervisory duty over all matters relating to flood defence throughout England and Wales. These powers and duties[20] make the Agency the single most important influence in the management of the UK's wetland landscape. With its broad-based environmental remit and multifunctional approach, the Environment Agency is ideally placed to secure the sound management of both the wetlands and flood risk. However, there are a number of hindrances in the present arrangements that frustrate the Agency's stated aims for both flood defence and conservation. Unless the Environment Agency is given the capacity to overcome these difficulties, it is unlikely that its flood defence work and conservation duties will be reconciled.

THE ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY IN FLOOD DEFENCE AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR NATURE CONSERVATION

  6.  Flood defence is by far the Environment Agency's largest function in terms of both the people and resources employed. Nationally it accounts for 44 per cent of the EA's annual spending[21]. However, in some areas such as Southern and Anglian Regions, it amounts to approximately two thirds of expenditure. Although flood defence is usually treated as a discrete activity in the Agency's budget heads, reports and publicity, its effects are wide ranging across many of the Agency's functions. River and coastal wetlands play an important role in maintaining water quality, fisheries, recreational opportunities and landscape quality as well as providing important habitats for many plants and animals.

  7.  The Environment Agency's principal aim is to protect or enhance the environment as a whole so as to contribute towards sustainable development[22]. Moreover, the Agency is charged with furthering and promoting the conservation of wildlife, the natural beauty of the landscape and recreation[23]. The Agency is permitted to construct, improve and maintain river and sea defences and in doing so it has the duty to further conservation[24]. It also has a general supervisory duty over all matters relating to flood defence, including land drainage, throughout England and Wales. The Agency's powers and duties relating to flood defence and conservation are therefore intrinsic.

  8.  The management of flood risk has the most profound impacts on the environment in general and wetland biodiversity in particular. It is therefore entirely appropriate that a body called the Environment Agency should have such a substantial remit in this area of environmental management. However, flood defence management has been synonymous with the widespread destruction or degradation of biodiversity. Rivers have been straightened and urbanised and coastal wetlands and flood plains have been reclaimed and drained. The catalogue to destruction is too long and widespread to detail. Ironically, these same practices have undermined the sustainability of the flood defences and increased the risks to people and property. Such a negative relationship between flood defence and the natural environment is neither desirable nor inevitable. The worst excesses of damage to the natural environment by flood defence and drainage were carried out at a time when the country's priorities were different and the multifunctional uses and values of wetland were less well understood. Nonetheless the legacy remains and the Environment Agency has the task of reconciling demands for both flood defence and conservation.

  9.  For generations the reaction to flooding has been to invest ever-greater sums of money in raising flood banks and draining wetlands. Quite apart from having devastated much of our wetland heritage and wildlife, this has drawn the Agency and its predecessors in to an unsustainable and increasingly expensive cycle of destruction and investment. In order to escape this treadmill and achieve its broad objectives without compromising its commitments to either defence or conservation, the Agency will have to change its approach. Recent policy statements, publications and pronouncements suggest that the Environment Agency is aware of this issue and desirous to achieve more sustainable management. Nonetheless, the current funding and institutional arrangements for flood defence present a considerable barrier to the Agency's ambitions.

  10.  For some time now the Government and its agencies, such as the Environment Agency and MAFF[25], have recognised the unsustainability of the status quo and the need for a new and more integrated approach. Official policy and guidance is now orientated to the need for integrated management of coastal wetlands, river systems and flood risk. Indeed, the Environment Agency's Environmental Strategy[26] states that it will be "based on the need to take an integrated approach to the management of the whole environment". And, its 1999 Annual Report acknowledges that its broad range of environmental management and regulatory responsibilities "need to be implemented within the coherent framework of an environmental strategy".

  11.  Sadly the shift in policy has not been matched by an adequate change in practice. The need for more thorough environmental assessment and strategic planning has led to a more careful approach to new development but it has yet to make a significant impression on the status quo in river and coastal management. A more fundamental shift towards integrated management is necessary to start to improve the present expensive and unsustainable position.

  12.  It has been argued that flood defence is under-funded[27]. Whether this is correct is difficult to ascertain. What can be said is that throwing more money at the problem without changing the approach will do nothing to resolve the issue of escalating costs[28] and increasing risk. Nor would it reconcile the inherent conflicts in the present approach between conservation and defence. The sound management and restoration of river and coastal wetlands is cost-effective and could lead to real savings in flood defence. However, a number of impediments exist in the current arrangements that are bound to continue to frustrate the Agency's best efforts to realise its integrated approach.

  13.  The Environment Agency's capacity to plan and implement flood defence in a strategic and integrated long-term fashion is frustrated by:

—  the funding arrangements;

—  flood defence committees;

—  outdated working practices and approaches;

—  a lack of integration;

—  development in areas of flood risk.

FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

  14.  There are two distinct funding streams for the Environment Agency's flood defence work:

—  Levies raised from local authorities by Regional Flood Defence Committees.

—  Grants from MAFF.

  15.  MAFF grants contribute to the cost of capital works and amounts to around 22 per cent of the Agency's total annual spend on flood defence. [29] The bulk of the rest of the Agency's flood defence work is financed by a levy on local authorities. Most, if not all, of the local authority's contribution is recouped from DETR through the Revenue Support Grant. The net effect is that the costs of flood defence, which might otherwise fall on local authorities and their council taxpayers, are almost all met by central government.

  16.  Notwithstanding central government financing, the Environment Agency has to make an annual case for funding to local authorities through its Regional Flood Defence Committees. These arrangements are not conducive to longer-term strategic planning and resource management. Flood Defence Commities[30] are not well placed to balance the national perspective or benefits of integrated environmental planning that are central to the Agency's remit. Indeed, the local priorities of the flood defence committees are often distinct from and sometimes contrary to national priorities. Nonetheless, the Environment Agency depends on appealing to flood defence committees for the funds to discharge its national remit. This is a constant uphill struggle that does nothing to support the Agency's commitment to act strategically.

  17.  Although the Environment Agency is charged with a broad environmental remit and has committed itself to a strategic and integrated approach, its funding for flood defence (a very large proportion of its total funding) is constrained by conditions that discourage a multifunctional and integrated approach. Consequently the Agency finds it difficult, if not impossible, to capitalise on the synergy of biodiversity, landscape, rural development and risk management objectives and thus escape the cycle of increasing cost and inherent conflicts described above.

  18.  The present system of funding creates an irrational division between capital and maintenance, which has more to do with the funding arrangements than flood defence needs. The division between capital funding, which is partly funded by MAFF, and maintenance funding, which is supported by DETR via levies on local authorities does nothing to engender sensible resource management. The balance between maintenance and capital funding should be governed by the most effective delivery of Government objectives. These include not only the reduction of flood risks, but also biodiversity conservation, an attractive countryside and rural diversification. One of the symptoms of the present funding arrangements is that Flood Defence Committee agendas tend to be dominated by the need to approve capital programmes, leaving little time or opportunity to address wider structural issues. The overall sustainability and cost-effective delivery of defence is thus marginalising in favour of spending on concrete.

  19.  The present funding arrangements do not support integrated management. The case for integrating the Agency's funding goes beyond simply eliminating the division between capital and maintenance funds for flood defence. Government policy recognises that the maintenance of the status quo in flood defence is not universally sustainable. However, the present arrangements frustrate changes to a more sustainable position. The case needs to be made for the wider integration of rural policy and funding to achieve the necessary adaptive measures in coastal and fluvial environments. This perforce should include the elimination of any perverse incentives and the engagement of the Common Agricultural Policy in broader rural and biodiversity objectives, including flood defence.

  20.   MAFF's role in funding arrangements.   MAFF provides about one fifth of the Agency's funding the flood defence through its support for capital schemes, research studies and strategy development. In terms of the narrow focus of this funding on flood defence, the same comments apply as above. Howeveer, MAFF's contribution plays a wider role in the flood defence work of the Agency. MAFF is responsible for national flood and coastal defence policy and its control of a proportion of the money for capital works allows the Ministry to steer the Agency's flood defence work in line with national policy. This is a valuable role, which under the present arrangements goes some way to counterbalance the local bias of the flood defence committees but it does not resolve the central tension between national and local priorities.

  21.   Local authorities' role in funding arrangements.   The use of local authorities as vectors of the largest portion of Government investment in flood and coastal defence gives a semblance of local democracy. However, since more or less all local authority flood and coastal defence expenditure is recouped from central Government, there is little incentive for local authorities to look for savings. Indeed, from a political perspective, there is merit in councils being seen to attract as much national money as possible, regardless of the distribution of need. The capping of local authority expenditure has constrained but not eliminated this tendency.

FLOOD DEFENCE COMMITTEES

  22.  The role of the Regional and Local Flood Defence Committees is inextricably linked to the funding arrangement for flood defence discussed above. Flood Defence Committees, with their mix of local authority representation and government appointees, give the administration of the Agency's flood defence functions a semblance of local accountability and democratic credibility. Unfortunately, this is illusory and the Committees do little to engender the kind of strategic approach to environmental management that the Agency's remit and policy demands. It is generally desirable and consistent with the purpose of sustainable development to give local people a stake in managing and resolving local issues. Unfortunately the Flood Defence Committees, together with the present funding arrangements, do little to achieve this and much to frustrate the Agency's best attempts to integrate its activities and plan strategically. The role of local democracy and representation in flood defence, together with the funding arrangements, should be reviewed to better facilitate the Agency's strategic and cost-effective delivery of its objectives and provide a more balanced voice for local people in the decision making process.

OUTDATED WORKING PRACTICES AND APPROACHES

  23.  The country's flood defence infrastructure was developed at a time when national priorities were very different and the value of natural wetlands for wildlife and their capacity to reduce the risk of flooding was poorly understood. Fluvial and coastal wetlands were extensively embanked and drained to increase agricultural production and rivers were straightened and canalised in a fashion more akin to plumbing than an integrated approach to river and coastal management. These were the accepted methods of the time, which cannot fairly be judged against today's objectives, but they have left us with a legacy that is unsustainable, expensive to maintain and ineffective by today's standards.

  24.  The engineering profession has dominated the flood defence industry. Until recent years, it paid little regard to environmental concerns or even the need to ensure the economic viability of schemes. Many operatives in the industry were nurtured in the old ways of doing things and some of the old attitudes and approaches linger on. Modern concerns and demands for cost effective and integrated management demands a more interdisciplinary approach. However, there is no textbook to explain how to meet modern expectations and the legacy of the old approach is tangible. It is not surprising therefore that throughout the flood defence industry there is a considerable degree of inertia. The complexities of the funding arrangements and the difficulties of balancing local demands and expectations with national priorities compound the problems of local operatives. There are examples of good practice but the deep-rooted obstacles to integrated and sustainable management described throughout this paper too often frustrate new initiatives.

  25.  However understandable the difficulties of meeting the new challenges may be, too much flood defence management lags seriously behind policy development and the standards of modern integrated environmental management. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK's own research[31] and experience clearly show that at the point of implementation many flood defence schemes continue to fail current standards and do nothing to progress wider environmental commitments. Even strategic initiatives, like Shoreline Management Plans, have yet to integrate biodiversity targets despite strategic guidance to do so. More needs to be done to harness the skills of local operatives in achieving the stated aims of the Environment Agency. This should go hand in hand with funding and institutional reform.

MAFF'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY'S FLOOD DEFENCE WORKS

  26.  MAFF has three roles:

—  It sets flood and coastal defence policy.

—  It provides a level of quality control on the Agency's implementation of policy.

—  It provides funding for capital work, research and strategy development.

  27.  In recent years MAFF's policy development has driven forward strategic planning and greater consideration for environmental issues in flood and coastal defence development, especially new capital works. The Ministry's control of funding has been instrumental in this process. However, MAFF's funding continues to be narrowly defined for flood protection rather than integrated management and this, arguably, has hampered the Agency's capacity to escape the degenerate cycle of expensive investment and destruction described above. Nonetheless, the strategic initiatives that have flowed from MAFF's policy development have begun to lay open, if not resolve, some of the major issues for flood defence management. MAFF's national perspective on the issue, unblemished by the expediency of accommodating the more narrowly focused interests of regional committee and vested interests, serves a valuable role in establishing a national strategy.

  28.  MAFF has also been increasingly instrumental in establishing priorities and ensuring the flood defence works meet minimum national thresholds. It has done this by developing a series of targets for operating authorities and imposing more rigorous minimum conditions on its funding for capital works through the points scoring systems. These initiatives have reduced the Agency's capacity to be swayed away from national imperatives by the local perspectives of Flood Defence Committees but they have yet to realise the benefits that would accrue to a more integrated approach to river and coastal management.

  29.  The Ministry's role in securing compliance of capital works to national standards and driving strategy development is valuable and it is difficult to see why these standards should not extend to the whole of the Agency's flood defence programme, including maintenance works. However, there exists a tension between MAFF's national, but narrower, perspective and the Agency's wider view which has to take account of local demands and expectations. A resolution to this institutional tension, together with the funding anomalies, is probably necessary to move the Agency's flood defence work forward.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' RELATIONSHIP TO THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY'S FLOOD DEFENCE WORKS

  30.  The relationship between the Environment Agency's flood defence work and the local authorities' functions in spatial planning and development control are critical. Historically the demand for flood defence has been increased by unfettered development in areas of flood risk. The Agency's guidance to local authorities, in line with Government's planning guidance, is now very good insofar as it strongly discourages unnecessary development in areas of flood risk and thus seeks to keep down the need for new defence. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK would support a strengthening of the Agency's powers in land use planning process to realise the Government's objectives for both spatial planning and water management.

BIODIVERSITY PLANNING AND FLOOD DEFENCE

  31.  The UK Biodiversity Action Plan lays out the UK's commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed at the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro. It sets out the broad strategy for conserving and enhancing wild species and their habitats, including quantifiable targets for the most threatened and declining species and habitats in the UK. The Plan forms the basis of the UK Government general commitment to nature conservation and the Environment Agency recognises that it has a key role in implementing it[32]. Indeed, the Agency acknowledges that its flood defence activities have important links to its conservation aims and it is the lead authority for a number of plans, including those for saltmarshes and mudflats.

  32.  More could be done to integrate biodiversity and flood defence. Under the present arrangements and approaches, outlined above, biodiversity conservation is treated as marginal or incidental to flood defence management. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth—many of the Government's biodiversity targets can only be realised through flood defence management. MAFF's high-level targets for flood and coastal defence operating authorities now have a target of no net loss of habitats covered by biodiversity habitat plans. Whilst this is a very welcome development, it will take a more positive stance on the part of the Agency to realise the mutual benefits of enhancing biodiversity and improving flood defence.

  33.  The EU Habitats Directive establishes stringent standards of protection for many conservation sites upon which the Agency's flood defence activities impact. In naturally dynamic coastal and estuarine locations the requirement to maintain the favourable conservation status of habitats and species of European importance presents some particularly difficult problems, which are not easily resolved by either traditional defence or conservation approaches. The Environment Agency is currently party to a joint initiative to meet this challenge in the form of Coastal Habitat Management Plans, which seek to reconcile the needs of both flood defence and nature conservation. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK support this initiative.

CONCLUSIONS

  34.  The Environment Agency is well placed to play a lead role in water management, including flood risk and wetland conservation. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK are supportive of the Agency's overall policy approach to environmental management. However, there are a number of serious impediments to the delivery of the Agency's stated objective and the reconciliation of its flood defence powers and environmental duties. The Government should take the necessary measures to support the Environment Agency by removing the impediments to its objective of contributing to sustainable development based on an integrated approach to the management of the whole environment. Key amongst these are the present funding and institutional arrangements.

October 1999

21   Environment Agency Annual Report and Accounts 1999. Back

22   The Environment Act 1995.< Back

23   Sections 6 & 7 of the Environment Act 1995.< Back

24   The Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Act 1991. Back

25   MAFF has responsibility for Flood and Coastal Defence Policy Back

26   Environmental Strategy for the Millennium and Beyond, Environment Agency (1999). Back

27   Environment Agency and local authority evidence to the House of Commons Agriculture Committee inquiry into Flood and Coastal Defence 1998. Back

28   The cost of EA's flood defence work rose 34 per cent between 1990-91 and 1998-99. Back

29   Averaged over the past 10 years Back

30   Flood defence committees are made up of local authority representative and MAFF appointees who generally have a vested interest maximising the local spend on flood protection. Back

31   Bowers, J K 1999. An Economically Efficient Strategy for Coastal Defence and the Conservation of the Intertidal Zone. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK. Back

32   The Environment Agency Corporate Plan 2000-01 and An Environmental Strategy for the Millennium and Beyond, EA 1999. Back