Leading environmental organisation Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management says that significant levels of underinvestment in flood infrastructure as identified by the Public Accounts Committee is unacceptable even in the current economic climate.

CIWEM was responding to yesterday’s publication of the Public Accounts Committee report which identifies significant under-investment in flood risk management infrastructure.

In CIWEM’s view public investment in infrastructure must deliver broader benefits such that flood risk management schemes reduce the risk, enhance the environment and encourage growth.

The independent professional body said that while the expectation that funding for such schemes should come from a range of public and private stakeholders was appropriate, there are no single beneficiaries from such schemes. The concept of “the beneficiary pays” is not valid when, as is usual, schemes benefit the wider community.

CIWEM is calling for funding generated from stakeholders to be used to increase the available budget rather than replace reduced funding provided by the Treasury. It said the suggestion that the funding mechanism recently introduced is “fairer” cannot be sustained when two equally valid schemes are prioritised only on their ability to generate third party income.

CIWEM added that the opportunity to significantly enhance the environment adjacent to rivers, lakes and coastline is there with clear legislative drivers, the Water Framework Directive, together with specific funding. Flood risk management schemes provided a vehicle to deliver those enhancements but could only be successful with the appropriate level of government funding.

Competing for private sector flood funding “verges on immoral”

CIWEM Executive Director, Nick Reeves OBE, commented:

“Budget cuts are part and parcel of all walks of life at present, but there are some areas which must be better protected.  The report by the Public Accounts Committee highlights one such area where householders and businesses are being put at unacceptable risk through no fault of their own, because funding for flood defences is being cut.”

“At the same time, the National Planning Policy Framework risks loosening restrictions within PPS25 on new development in flood plains, potentially putting even more people at risk of the often devastating life impacts of flooding.  For such people to then be put in the position to potentially have to compete for private sector funding to protect their properties and businesses, and at the same time face the prospect of being unable to afford insurance verges on immoral, particularly when climate change threatens to bring increasingly extreme flood events in coming decades.”

Engineers concerned about flood funding

Yesterday another professional body raised similar concens. Responding to the Public Accounts Committee report, Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) director general Nick Baveystock said:

“The ICE has raised concerns in the past about finance for flood risk management in light of reduced public spending and changes to the way projects are funded. The move to give local authorities more responsibility is sensible but because most flood budgets will not be ring-fenced, there is a danger that it could be used to make up shortfalls in other areas. We need to move away from a costly and increasingly impractical ‘defend at all costs’ approach and think innovatively about how to prevent and build risk management into the planning for new and existing communities.”