Agenda item

(A verbal report by Claire Rose, Environment Agency, in connection with an update of this Strategy)

The Committee received a short presentation from Steven Coe, Flood and Coastal Risk Management Advisor, which provided the Committee with an overview of the Flood & Coastal Risk Management Funding and Benefit Apportionment. 

The Committee was advised that every project or strategy needed to identify the sources of funding as part of its business case.  And that the amount of GiA funding related to the benefits the project would bring.  It was noted that the GiA was calculated through the use of the partnership funding calculator, which considered: homes better protected; homes in deprived areas; economic benefits; and wildlife benefits.  It was highlighted that houses protected was very important, as the payment rates were higher than for economic benefits.

It was reported that some houses were at risk from more than one source of flooding for example tidal, fluvial and surface water.  It was noted that houses and benefits could not be double counted between separate projects to address these risks; and that the Environment Agency (EA) worked closely with other management authorities to accommodate their investment needs.  It was noted further that to address the double counting issue, there were options available for example benefits apportionment.

The Committee was advised that any approach to apportioning benefits of Flood Coastal Risk Management Projects the EA worked very closely with all the Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) involved to understand the flood risk in their area; their objectives for managing; and their future programme of works.  Where it was not possible to readily separate areas affected by different sources of responsibilities for flood risk, separate economic assessments could be carried out.  This would be done with the benefits and outcomes of proposed works being apportioned to the different sources or Risk Management Authorities using the ratio of annual average avoided damage from one source, to the rest.  It was noted that this approach was useful in areas of widespread multi-source flooding.

An example of the Environment Agency's approach was provided at the meeting, which split the sources of flooding into coastal and rainfall.

In conclusion, the Committee was advised that next steps included further development of the Benefits Apportionment Plan; sign-off from each of the Risk Management Authorities; submission alongside the strategy in early 2019 for approval.

The Committee was advised further that the advantages of taking a strategic approach were that there was agreement with all the RMAs; the assessment of risk was apportioned to ensure fairness; double counting was avoided; the RMAs had clarity when developing projects; and that high level testing had shown that the proposed apportionment was compatible with RMA projects.

During a short discussion reference was made for the need to include the importance of arable land.  Confirmation was given that this was built in to the economic set of criteria for Lincolnshire.  It was highlighted that the scrutiny committee had already written to the government regarding partnership funding arrangements.  It was noted that criteria was being reviewed and that previously weighting had been given to land, which was now given to people and property.  The Committee was advised that the rules of apportionment were Treasury Rules and not Environment Agency rules. 

RESOLVED

That the presentation concerning the Flood & Coastal Risk Management Funding and Benefits Apportionment be received.