Project summary STAR-FLOOD was an EU FP7-funded project researching means of “STrengthening And Redesigning European FLOOD

risk practices” (2012-2016). Adopting a combined public administration and legal perspective, STAR-FLOOD

examined how current Flood Risk Governance Arrangements (FRGA) can be strengthened and (re)designed to

enhance societal resilience to flooding in urban areas. Empirical research was conducted in six selected EU

countries; namely Belgium, England (UK), France, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden, and 18 local case studies

therein. Each national FRGA was evaluated in terms of the normative stance adopted by the project that governance

should enhance societal resilience to flooding and do so in an efficient and legitimate way.

www.STAR-FLOOD.eu

Strengthening flood risk governance in England STAR-FLOOD Policy Brief 3 — England. March 2016.

Increasing flood risk in Europe At a time where flood risks are projected to increase in line with climate change and other risk-enhancing factors, efforts to enhance societal resilience to flooding are essential. In response to mounting risks and uncertainty, there is a strong consensus that holistic approaches to Flood Risk Management (FRM) are required. Such approaches combine strategies and measures to manage flood risk (including exposure, the hazard potential and consequences). Flood Risk Governance underscores the delivery of FRM, from policy and legislation through to its implementation. Governance therefore plays a pivotal role in supporting (or potentially constraining) societal resilience to flooding.

Methodology Semi-structured interviews with past and current flood risk

professionals with experience in all aspects of flood risk governance; including spatial planning, flood defence and mitigation, forecasting, warning, emergency management, financial recovery mechanisms and climate change adaptation;

In-depth policy analysis;

Legal analysis based on historical and positive law;

Consultation of post-event inquiries and reviews, spending figures etc.

18 case studies in contrasting urban areas

Expert workshops with practitioners, policy-makers and academics

Countries and cases in STAR-FLOOD

Making space for water / Room for the River are recurring discourses in England

Key findings from cross-country comparisons Across STAR-FLOOD countries efforts have been made to diversify FRM Strategies (FRMSs), beyond defence

-dominated approaches. England is an exception to this rule, as all five FRMSs have been established for ca. 65 years; albeit, the strategies have become increasingly more aligned and embedded within a comprehensive FRM approach.

Although the diversity of FRMS is necessary for societal resilience, each individual strategy must be effective in its own right. Moreover, the analysis performed by each STAR-FLOOD country demonstrates the importance of effective ‘bridging’ mechanisms to connect certain FRMSs and policy domains to overcome fragmentation in flood risk governance arrangements.

Efforts to align spatial planning policy with FRM are evident in all STAR-FLOOD countries, with similar mechanisms employed to regulate development in areas at risk of flooding; such as the Sequential and Exception Tests in England and the Water Tests in the Netherlands and Belgium. Whilst effective, there is a strong consensus that the relationship between FRM and spatial planning needs to be strengthened.

Financial recovery mechanisms in the form of insurance or compensation predominantly promote a ‘return to normal’ and do not do enough to encourage adaptation.

Certain contextual factors (and combination thereof) have proved to be highly important for understanding how different Flood Risk Governance Arrangements (FRGA) have emerged between these countries , these relate to differences in physical exposure to flooding, flood experiences, normative values (e.g. solidarity, beneficiary pays), as well as the legal rules governing the distribution of responsibilities and rights to flood

Shared governance challenges in Europe Enforcement mechanisms in spatial planning

are generally weak and can lead to inappropriate development that circumvents flood risk in the future;

Financial recovery mechanisms in the form of insurance or compensation promote the ‘return to normal’ and do not do enough to incentivise adaptation;

Societal expectations that the State is responsible and should prevent flooding can undermine risk awareness and motivation for adopting personal responsibility in FRM;

Climate change poses a significant threat and means that extreme and extraordinary events may become ‘ordinary’ occurrences.

Good practices in England Public participation is highly formalised in policy and

practice;

Resources for community, bottom-up action (e.g. Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder Scheme);

A nationally registered charity to support community responses to flooding (National Flood Forum);

Highly effective flood forecasting and arrangements for disseminating flood warnings;

Local Resilience Forums for promoting integrated emergency management;

Statutory duties to cooperate and share information in spatial planning and emergency management;

Dedicated 6 year spending programme for new defence projects;

High penetration of insurance;

Consideration of uncertain futures (e.g. Catchment Flood Management Plans and Long-term Investment Scenarios)

Summary of the Flood Risk Governance Arrangement in England This research provides a comprehensive analysis of the actors, rules, resources and discourses that structure the National Flood Risk Governance Arrangement (FRGA). Within this arrangement, eight sub-arrangements deliver distinct goals (Figure 1) and further reflect different modes of governance; with evidence of centralised, decentralised, public-private, self-governance and interactive governance. Bridging mechanisms and processes facilitate interactions between these sub-arrangements. In contrast to other European countries, a diversified and holistic approach to FRM has been established for ca.65 years in England.

Governance dynamics Flood risk management has a long

legacy in England and is characterised by long periods of stability and incremental change (rather than abrupt departures from the past).

Significant changes in flood risk governance tend to be driven by exogenous factors, such as shifts in political ideology (e.g. centralisation, privatisation and localism).

In contrast, factors leading to stability as well as incremental change, are generally endogenous to the flood policy domain, such as so-called ‘catalyst’ flood events.

Different orders of change are evident, for instance, the implementation of the EU Floods Directive 2007/60/EC provided greater support to existing practices.

The FRGA is flexible and able to respond quickly to new challenges.

Flood risk governance has become more complex over time, leading to greater overlaps with other policy domains, increasing number of rules and actors, leading to mixed modes of governance.

In turn, there has been more alignment and coordination between sub-FGRAs within an increasingly comprehensive national arrangement.

Figure 1: The national Flood Risk Governance Arrangement (FRGA) in England, 2015. The figure depicts where each sub-governance arrangement relates to distinct FRM strategies.

Improving funding for flood defence and mitigation

1. The National Investment Plan is a significant step-change in the allocation of capital investment. Since the time of

data collection and analysis, the Treasury has released the Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015, which also protects the budget for defence maintenance until 2021. This is an important step-forward in securing revenue for asset maintenance in the medium-term. We recommend the continuation or extension of a 6 year spending programme (once the current Investment Plan is delivered in 2021), which gives equal consideration to capital and revenue funding from the outset.

2. There is a need to establish a strategy to incentivise the private sector to enter into risk-sharing arrangements

under Partnership Funding. This strategy should take into account the different interests and motivations (e.g. beneficiary, branding and notion of corporate responsibility) and consider different types of incentives.

3. Continued alignment of FRM with other policy goals (such as economic development and re-generation), is

necessary for diversifying funding sources for FRM activities. There is a need to develop methods for performing cross-sectorial Cost-Benefit Analysis to examine these wider benefits and facilitate access to wider funding streams.

Incentivising property-level measures through flood insurance

5. The Flood Reinsurance scheme (“Flood Re”) is an important stop-gap measure to ensure the availability and

affordability of flood insurance. However, the insurance industry should take a more proactive role in promoting the uptake of property-level risk reduction measures. In the transition towards risk-reflective pricing, there is a need to establish a strategy for incentivising policyholders to invest in risk reduction measures; this should include plans to increase risk awareness and clarify how household flood risk reports will be rewarded.

Recommendations for strengthening flood risk governance in England

An example of tiered development by the edge of the River Aire Thames Barrier (© Environment

Flood gates on the Isle of Wight

Addressing flooding through better spatial planning

4. Continued development on the floodplain may be unavoidable, but all future development should be adaptively

designed to minimise exposure to future to risks. However, there is a need to strengthen enforcement mechanisms to ensure that planning decisions taken today do not simply circumvent risks in the future. Risks should not only be passed to homeowners, but those undertaking (and profiting) from development should also retain some responsibility and liability.

Secondly, more needs to be done to integrate and retrofit Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) into urban centres. This is largely the responsibility of property owners, such as domestic, commercial and public properties; therefore, incentives for promoting SUDS must be directed at various property owners (CIWEM, 2013). This should be accompanied by national and local initiatives to promote SUDS retrofitting and inclusion within urban centres. The creation of ‘SUDS champions’ within Risk Management Authorities could facilitate the delivery of this vision at the local scale

Contact details Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University London Dr Meghan Alexander m.c.alexander@mdx.ac.uk) Dr Sally Priest (s.priest@mdx.ac.uk)

Improving communication with the public

8. There is a need to better manage societal expectations, improve public understanding of flood risk and risk

responsibilities, and enhance acceptance of the risk-based, ‘living with water’ philosophy advocated in flood policy in the pursuit of sustainable FRM. This is necessary to empower individuals to adopt adaptive behaviours (e.g. implementation of property-level measures). However, this can be constrained by inconsistencies in risk communication messages provided by different RMAs. Therefore, we recommend that efforts are made, from national to local scales, to establish consistent, user-friendly information about flood risks and FRM across Risk Management Authorities.

Moreover, this should be echoed by public-facing actors and reactive political ‘knee-jerk’ reactions following flood events (e.g. Winter 2013/14) should be avoided, as these undermine FRM policy as well as setting precedents that cannot be sustained. Public-facing actors and politicians should provide greater support for the FRM approach adopted in England, especially given the considerable strengths and examples of best practice embedded within it.

Recommendations for strengthening flood risk governance in England

Project report Alexander, M., Priest, S., Micou, A.P., Tapsell, S., Green, C., Parker, D., and Homewood, S. (2016) Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in England – Enhancing societal resilience through comprehensive and aligned flood risk governance. STAR-FLOOD Consortium. Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University.

Improving resources for local flood risk management

6. Since the time of data collection and analysis, the government has released the Spending review and Autumn

Statement 2015, as well as the Provisional local government finance settlement 2016-2017, which outlines reforms to local government funding. These changes will reduce dependency on central government grants and mean that councils will be fully-funded through local sources of revenue. The impact of these funding reforms upon local FRM is an unknown, but is likely to vary significantly across the country. These funding reforms could have serious implications for local investment in FRM activities. Therefore, we recommend that in the transition period for implementing these reforms a formal review process is established to explicitly monitor both positive and negative implications and knock-on effects for FRM spending.

7. Community engagement is essential for enhancing risk awareness and ownership of risk responsibility at the local

scale; however, resource constraints in the LLFAs and the EA constrain the delivery of this essential work. There is a need to increase resources (financial, staffing and skills) to support public engagement activities that are rooted in local concerns in order to enhance sustainability.

York, December 2015

Aberystwyth, Wales, Jan 2014