Guidance on the role of flood and coastal defence in nature conservation in England

Transcription

1 Guidance on the role of flood and coastal defence in nature conservation in England Introduction The RSPB is the largest wildlife conservation organisation in Europe with over 1 million members. With 168 nature reserves, covering more than 115,000 hectares, we manage one of the largest conservation estates in the UK. These include a range of wetland habitats relevant to the work of flood and coastal defence operating authorities, including floodplain grassland, riverside and coastal reedbeds and estuaries. The RSPB takes an active interest in a wide range of environmental and land-use issues and employs professional staff to advise on such matters. The RSPB welcomes this opportunity to comment on the role of flood and coastal defence in nature conservation, which we see as one of the key delivery mechanisms for achieving biodiversity gains. Revised guidance on the role of flood and coastal defence in nature conservation is also opportune in view of developments such as the Hullbridge decision in Essex and continued discrepancies in approach between operating authorities around the country. Although the guidance includes a number of helpful statements supported by the RSPB, there are specific areas that we wish to see strengthened. As a general point, the Water Resources Act, 1991 defines land drainage as the carrying on, for any purpose, of any practice which involves management of the level of water in a watercourse. This should be stated at the start of the guidance together with an explanation that by definition, this includes work that alters water levels to benefit nature conservation. Our specific comments are outlined below. Section 2.3 The Water Framework Directive The RSPB welcomes the statement that flood and coastal defence operating authorities will need to consider what further environmental enhancements are required to comply with the EU Water Framework Directive, which is expected to pass into UK law by We agree that this may require expenditure to achieve good ecological status and look to DEFRA to provide clear guidance on what will be considered appropriate works for grant-aid. As you will be aware the RSPB is taking a strong role in the transposition of the Directive and would welcome further discussions with DEFRA on this issue. Section 3.2 Environmental impacts and biodiversity

2 In terms of nature conservation, the minimum position for operating authority stated in the guidance is not that flood and coastal defence work should avoid environmental damage and ensure that there is no net detriment to Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat. The minimum position is the overarching legal duty to further conservation. In other words, the minimum position must be one of improving conservation. The way it is currently worded seriously underplays this point and must therefore be changed to reflect more closely the true position. The RSPB supports the statement that opportunities for creating new BAP habitat and other environmental enhancement may be identified through documents such as Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs). However, our involvement to date in the pilot CFMPs suggests that these are failing to adequately consider potential habitat creation opportunities. Stronger guidance from DEFRA on this issue is therefore urgently needed. Section 3.3 Water Level Management Plans (WLMPs) The production and implementation of water level management plans continues to be the subject of considerable debate. The RSPB is concerned over the value of many of the WLMPs completed to date and therefore the value of their implementation. Our on-going review of plans prepared for international sites reveals that the vast majority are arguably not fit for purpose. However, we agree that WLMPs in principle provide a good opportunity for operating authorities to help meet their duty under the UK BAP to contribute to the attainment of relevant biodiversity targets. The guidance should therefore offer stronger support to the production and implementation of good quality plans not only for statutorily designated sites but also non-statutory sites, with priority given to those where the conservation value of water level dependent habitats is high. Section 3.4 Coastal Habitat Management Plans (CHaMPs) We welcome confirmation that operating authorities should seek to create replacement habitats in advance of predictable losses occurring. Section 4.1 Environmental impacts and biodiversity The RSPB accepts that good scheme appraisal will increasingly identify those measures necessary to avoid or minimise damage to nature conservation interests, ensure no net loss of BAP habitat and compensate for significant damage. We support the statement that no new schemes should progress without satisfying this minimum requirement and that measures to achieve this can legitimately be included within the overall cost of a scheme. However, as mentioned above, it is imperative that the "minimum position" is not seen as merely avoiding environmental damage but rather as the overarching duty to further conservation. Ensuring no net loss and compensating for damage is simply not the legal minimum requirement. In addition, in this paragraph it states there is no provision for the use of flood and coastal defence funds for the remediation of damage perceived to have arisen from previous works. This is a fundamental weakness in the guidance, not least because it is inaccurate. The RSPB therefore objects to the inclusion of this statement. Flood defence funds can legally be spent on water-level management for any purpose (as noted above and in paragraph 3.3 of the draft guidance). This includes conservation. It is therefore entirely legitimate for funds to be spent on

3 remediation of previous damage, if the works involve changes to water level management to achieve that remediation. Indeed this is exactly what many Water Level Management Plans and River Restoration schemes do. Notwithstanding, we accept that funds should also be directed to achieving agreed policy targets, including BAP targets. In many instance, the latter will necessitate reversing the effects of previous works. Consequently, we feel strongly that this paragraph should be substantively rewritten. Sections 4.2 WLMPs and CHaMPs As a general point the separation of WLMPs and CHaMPs from conservation enhancement measures could promote an artificial division in the minds of officers within the operating authorities. Both WLMPs and CHaMPs are two mechanisms for implementing conservation enhancement as well as being flood or coastal defence works. There would appear therefore to be a lack of overall joined-up thinking within the guidance. The RSPB continues to be concerned that WLMP production is not eligible for grant aid. This has two major consequences. Firstly, as some plans have been prepared as cheaply as possible the quality of the final product has been compromised as a result. Many of the plans prepared for Anglian Region of the Environment Agency fall into this category Secondly, there has been no robust quality assurance procedure adopted by DEFRA. The quality of the plans therefore varies considerably, with most not identifying mechanisms to address unresolved issues. The RSPB therefore feels strongly that the production of WLMPs should be grant-aided. This would show a much stronger commitment to their completion and provide an opportunity for DEFRA to have a greater say in their quality. The RSPB also considers that DEFRA should pay for, or at least contribute towards, the cost of producing CHaMPs, especially as these will hopefully feed into the next round of SMPs and help with achieving compliance with the Habitat Regulations. As such, we request a full explanation as to why they are not eligible for grant-aid at present. We welcome the statement that once completed operating authorities will be expected to implement CHaMPs. We also welcome the statement that projects developed under these plans should be considered alongside more traditional flood defence projects designed primarily to protect life and property. However, there will be situations where Flood Defence Committees have to make difficult decisions between schemes deemed necessary to meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations and discretionary schemes providing improved flood protection to people and property. In as much as the Government is ultimately responsible for compliance with the Habitats Directive, it would seem appropriate for DEFRA to meet the full cost of such schemes. They would however continue to be implemented through the appropriate operating authority. Sections 4.3 Conservation enhancement measures The RSPB support the statement that in planning flood or coastal defence works, operating authorities should seek opportunities that may be available for the integration of environmental enhancement within a flood and coastal defence scheme and that such works will be in addition to any mitigation or compensation work that may be required. We fully support the statement that operating authorities should consider enhancement as an essential part of all schemes.

4 We also welcome clarification that where possible the economic benefits of environmental enhancements should be incorporated into the economic appraisal. The RSPB has found it difficult on several occasions, including for example at Shrewsbury, to have the environmental and social benefits of flood storage taken into account in the economic appraisal at the option stage. Clearer guidance on how this should be done is urgently needed if schemes that deliver multi-functional benefits are to be taken forward on anything other than an occasional basis. The suggested criteria indicating where DEFRA consider enhancement works would be acceptable is overly restrictive. Use of the word incidental in the fist bullet point is particularly unhelpful. Adopting these criteria could mean that habitat creation is largely only advocated as a bolt-on aspect of any given scheme. The guidance therefore misses the important scenario where creating habitat creation, such as through a flood storage scheme, provides the means for delivering the flood defence benefit. The RSPB therefore wishes to see inclusion of an additional criterion covering the situation where the conservation enhancement involving large-scale habitat creation provides the desired flood defence benefit. Although we accept that it may not be possible, and potentially overly prescriptive, to prescribe a precise proportion of the flood defence budget to be allocated to enhancements, Thames Region of the Environment Agency has used a figure of around 5% of its budget. This has resulted in a substantial amount of worthwhile nature conservation work being done with the full support of the flood defence committee. The guidance should therefore be bold enough to say that it is generally expected that not less than 10% of the flood defence budget and substantially more where circumstances dictate, should be spent on nature conservation. This would set a minimum spend as opposed to the potential zero spend at present. One consequence of this could be greater commitment to the production and implementation of WLMPs and so help achieve DEFRA objectives. We therefore recommend the inclusion of a sentence along the following lines: Although the proportion of the overall flood and coastal defence budget allocated to nature conservation enhancements will vary according to local priorities, it is expected that as a general rule, not less than 10% of the budget will be allocated in any given year. Section 5 Way Forward We welcome the statement that some degree of planning is required to deliver conservation benefits without adding unduly to the burden on operating authorities. It must be remembered that there is already a wealth of nature conservation planning underway. As such, the guidance should not only refer to, but be integrated with, local, regional and national BAPs where this would assist in the planning process and setting targets. The priority for operating authorities must however be delivery on the ground, not production of yet more plans. We agree in principle with the suggestion that operating authorities should draw together a conservation work programme to help identify priorities. However, we question whether this could in most cases be achieved within the capital works plan submitted to the Flood Defence Committee. Many local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards do not prepare capital works plans for a Flood Defence Committee. In addition, sole reliance on capital works may restrict the opportunities for both achieving enhancements through the maintenance programme, as well as securing collaborative funding. If potential partners see that a project is included in a capital works programme they may expect it to be fully funded by the relevant operating authority

5 and/or DEFRA. We do though welcome the proposal that operating authorities should provide a statement on the scope for conservation enhancement, and their costs, for all schemes that go forward to DEFRA. As such, we consider it would be better if operating authorities were to present their proposals in maintenance programmes except those schemes for which DEFRA grant-aid is anticipated.