Alternative Governance for living with a changing coastline
Split responsibility between so many authorities leads to a confused approach and unbalanced delivery with the various key players keen to protect their own part of the jigsaw seemingly irrespective of the overall picture. This imbalance and the use of permissive power in the Coast Protection Act 1949 creates a climate of "pass the buck" with one authority constantly using another to blame for their own inadequacies.
There is widespread and massive confusion amongst stakeholders over fluvial flooding policy and coast protection policy and funding. Fluvial protection and coast protection are separate issues each with their own problems and drivers. There should be a clear division of approach and funding. Coastal stakeholders are furious when a Government Minister announces the flood and coast protection budget for the coming year i.e. 2005 some £570,000,000, only to find on closer scrutiny that the actual amount going to lead authorities for coast protection is a small percentage of that figure. This is seen as political duplicity. Under current arrangements it is almost impossible for Stakeholders (Joe public) to trust any one of the Authorities responsible for coast protection. There is a desperate need for a single agency to hold absolute responsibility for the management of the National Coastline which is adequately funded operating under a statutory instrument which is relevant to the 21st century (which the Coast Protection Act 1949 is not) and 21st century problems i.e. Global warming, climate change and sea level rise within a socially just framework. Such an Agency need not be "another layer of bureaucracy" or substantially increase the government employment and operating budget.
I would envisage an agency which absorbed the responsibility and relevant staff of the current key players i.e. DEFRA , Environment Agency, English Nature and Maritime Local Authorities.
Whatever form a change of governance for coastal management takes it must be based on openness, honesty and trust. This can only be achieved through a more inclusive approach, consultation must be widened from the usual quangos and single interest groups to include the end user, the public. This will allow the input of local knowledge and expertise resulting in more sustainable management measures. In short I firmly believe inclusion leads to acceptance.
To illustrate this I use the example of the Kelling to Lowestoft Ness second generation draft SMP, which because of timing, lack of consultation and failure to educate and "build into it" the public, is receiving widespread condemnation and resistance. Rightly or wrongly local members and the public feel they have had a gun put to their head, it is a done deal.
If Government had waited for the completion of the Atkins report: ICZM in the UK: a Stocktake Absorbed and taken on board its findings, produced a viable means of incorporating and implementing social justice, both educated and consulted the public before producing the SMP then the end result would have been much wider acceptance.
At the moment the release of the SMP has had a massive counter productive effect on socio economic well being and security throughout it's coastal strip. Properties and businesses are now blighted, the majority of them without cause. Many properties are suffering serious devaluation with others now un-sellable. This is not a projection it is happening now! Examples of this include one property which was sold prior to the publication of the draft SMP with exchange due to take place on Oct 4th, however the SMP became public on the 2nd OCT and the buyer withdrew. That property has subsequently sold for £75,000 less than it's original £295,000 agreed price. Yet another property which was sold prior to the publication of the SMP and being rented by the purchaser whilst progressing the purchase is now back on the market, the buyers having pulled out as a direct result of the draft SMP. They have told me in spite of the property in question not being at risk for a great many years, or if ever, they feel they cannot risk their investment on any property in an area now so significantly blighted.
Social Justice. Probably one of the most difficult areas of governance current
or new. All of my comments here are intended to relate to total loss coastal issues
and in no way attempt to address the very different requirements of fluvial flooding.
Care must be taken not to allow the public purse to be used to bail out individuals who
have made inappropriate choices of where to live, nor must the public purse in any way
encourage or provide a means for speculators to cash in. Equally, care must be taken to
achieve parity with other groups of public affected be either a change of or new government
policy ; i.e. road or rail building, airport extension etc. Care must also be exercised
so as not to allow an open ended drain on public finances, there must be some point of
closure.
Listed below are some of the points which need to be addressed to attain effective social justice and management into the future:
- Total loss situation
- Inability to insure
- Compensation is paid by other EU States equating to 100% of market value without the problem
- The ability of communities to function normally throughout the SMP period
- The impracticality and huge cost of moving entire communities inland
- Shared responsibility (both positions untenable)
1 Total loss.
Unlike fluvial flooding which rarely results in total loss the lack of sea/coast defence
almost always results in a total loss scenario for those affected. I would stress that
all of my comments here apply only to those properties/communities which have been
historically defended and not to any individual who has exercised their own judgement on
purchasing property or land in hitherto undefended areas.
Whilst accepting that no one has an inherent statutory right to be defended from the sea we must recognise that those individuals who have invested in historically defended coastal areas do have a right to expect morally sound and just recognition of the disproportionate sacrifice they are expected to make when Government decides, by whatever means, not to continue defending. Particularly when they have, when purchasing sought accepted best expert advice.
2 Inability to insure.
The ability of stakeholders to offset the risk and consequential cost by insurance is not available.
As with other types of insurance Insurers operate on an actuarial basis and cover only risk of their choosing. It is virtually impossible to insure against certainty. Thus insurance becomes something of a postcode lottery with cover removed as the coastline retreats.
3 Compensation in the EU.
Some EU member states operate a far more socially just system than that which currently
exists in the UK. France pays compensation, in appropriate circumstances, when total loss
is suffered. Payment is made from what is called the Solidarity fund at a rate of 100%
of the no problem market value.
4 Functional Communities.
Vitally important is the ability of coastal communities to continue functioning effectively
throughout the life of an SMP and /or the remainder of their existence however long that may
be. We are being asked to consider coastal management over a 100 year timescale. Any
consideration of social justice in financial terms must be linked to the same timescale as
the SMP.
5 Relocation.
Moving entire communities inland would not only prove to be extremely difficult and
impractical (there is already much resistance to this idea amongst the public) but also
very costly.
6 Shared responsibility.
We are being asked as stakeholders to accept that not all previously defended areas should
continue to be defended. Conversely, government must accept that by choosing not to defend
previously defended areas in the name of the wider national interest, then the total loss
situation encountered by many individuals in pursuance of that policy is hugely disproportionate
and the nation must take full account and mitigate that loss. Only then can there be a
smooth transition into a more sustainable policy. The current government position of doing
nothing at no cost to itself is as untenable as the perception of some of the public that
everywhere must be defended no matter what the financial or environmental cost.
Considering all of the foregoing and the critical situation and loss of confidence in the property market in North Norfolk as a direct result of the release of the draft SMP, government must act quickly and decisively to restore lost confidence. If the need for social justice is recognised now along with a means of application and delivery; I would suggest creating a Coastal Re-alignment Fund then blight will be removed and speculation prevented. This in itself will mean that communities can continue to function.
If government effectively underwrites the properties hitherto protected by paying 100% of market value without the problem on the date of loss, payable on the property irrespective of who owns it at the time cost is both limited to properties which currently exist and known, on the strict proviso that there must be no future build in at risk areas. If payment is made only when property is lost there will be no hidden or unexpected costs and a manageable, planned approach is possible. Confidence will return to the property market, stakeholders will be able to sell out and buy in based on the knowledge that their investment is sound and saleable thus the communities will be able to function normally. The market will not be artificially depressed or inflated and therefore unattractive to speculators.
The whole question of relocation would be obviated. Individuals who lose property and receive payment from the fund would not become a burden to society ( social housing etc.) and would be free to relocate themselves. This could be further back in the same community or elsewhere if they so choose. Relocation within the same community holds no increase in cost to government because payment is linked to property which means there can only ever be one payment, at total loss, no matter how many times the property changes hands in the interim.
One attraction of this approach is the self healing benefit which can be achieved by
allowing natural rollback. When this becomes impossible through no future build individuals
will naturally relocate in a non risk area. For this to work effectively government must
strictly control building policy.
Funding should be available on property/land already behind the existing defensive line. If erosion settles down (as the draft SMP would indicate) or slows to a lower than anticipated level , there will be a consequential lowering of costs to government.
Benefits derived from such an approach are flexibility, simplicity and understanding by all, no complicated and unfair formulae, equations, or percentages and would be in keeping with both the letter and spirit of the Bill of Human Rights particularly Article 8 of the first protocol thus avoiding any costly legal challenges which are sure to come if social justice is not addressed adequately and effectively. Just as importantly I believe any such simple straightforward approach from government would build trust and belief in what government is saying it wants to achieve.
Any mechanism such as the proposed Coastal Re-Alignment Fund rewards no-one and creates a level playing field for coastal communities and puts individual stakeholders on a par with all other citizens who are asked to make sacrifices in the national interest.
I have spoken to many people in the front line along the North Norfolk coast, the North East coast and the South coast when asked the question "do you want continued coast defences or 100% compensation?" the answer is an absolutely unequivocal "defences." That would be their ideal, if that is not possible they just wish to be treated in a fair, just and principled manner.
Malcolm Kerby
Co-ordinator, CCAG