16. This division of responsibilities is codified in a body of disparate legislation, the most important being the Coast Protection Act 1949; the Land Drainage Acts (1991 and 1994); the Water Resources Act 1991; and the Environment Act 1995. The Coast Protection Act sets out the legislative framework for the protection of the coastline against erosion from the sea, while the Land Drainage Acts, the Water Resources Act and the Environment Act specify legal competences and permissive powers for the actioning of flood defence.

17. These legislative provisions are administered in England by MAFF, and in Wales by the Welsh Office. Under the terms of these different items of legislation, a variety of authorities have been assigned permissive powers for the implementation of flood and coastal defence policy and the construction of defence works, including local authorities, Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs), private owners of riparian and coastal land, and, through its inherited network of Regional and Local Flood Defence Committees (RFDCs/LFDCs), the Environment Agency. The areas covered by RFDCs and LFDCs have essentially been inherited by the Environment Agency from the structure which existed under the National Rivers Authority. These areas are based to a large extent on river catchment areas and do not necessarily coincide with existing administrative boundaries: nor do the RFDC regions coincide with the regions to be covered by Regional Development Agencies. Neither MAFF nor the Welsh Office have powers to implement policy, but both Departments play a leading role in setting national priorities and in providing grants to implementing authorities to carry out works which meet particular economic, environmental and technical criteria.

Organisational responsibilities: national strategy and local implementation

18. While MAFF's involvement in agricultural land drainage and sea defence predates the war, the Ministry has only had overall policy responsibility for flood and coastal defence in England since 1985. MAFF conducted a substantial reappraisal of national flood and coastal defence priorities during 1993, and, on the basis of this review, issued a national strategy document for flood and coastal defence in England and Wales[16]. The current national strategic aim promoted to operating authorities is "To reduce the risk to people and the developed and natural environment from flooding and coastal erosion by encouraging the provision of technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable defence measures"[17]. A number of key objectives flow from this aim, including encouraging "the use of adequate and cost-effective flood warning systems", "the provision of adequate, economically, technically and environmentally sound and sustainable flood and coastal defence measures", discouraging " inappropriate development in areas at risk from flooding and coastal erosion", and a presumption against disrupting "natural river and coastal processes".

19. While it is apparent that MAFF has had variable success nationally in bringing these different aims to fruition over the last five years, it is equally evident that the Ministry has not merely paid lip-service to their promulgation. In particular, MAFF has given greater priority to so-called 'soft engineered' approaches to flood and coastal defence. This approach, whereby the mitigation of erosion and flooding is achieved through increased reliance on coastal and riverine features, such as beaches, mudflats and flood plains, to alleviate these natural processes rather than by constructing hard defences to block or obstruct them, has become more widespread recently, partly because the Ministry has ensured that funding for such projects has been made more easily available than was the case formerly[18]. Furthermore, in collaboration with the Environment Agency, the Ministry has brought forward large-scale soft-engineered projects of its own. For example on the Lincolnshire coast MAFF is investing approximately £120 million over a 40-year period in the UK's largest beach nourishment project, rather than relying only on restoring the existing system of hard defences.

20. MAFF's strategy document notes, rightly in our view, that "no one method of defence will hold good in all circumstances; hard defences will continue to be appropriate in many cases"[19], for example to protect the large towns and cities and major industrial developments of the east English and south Wales coasts. Nevertheless, the Ministry's more enlightened approach to soft engineering does seem to have had some effect on the activities of operating authorities. In evidence to us, the Institution of Civil Engineers acknowledged the gradual shift in emphasis from hard- to soft-engineered defences which has come about nationally since the 1993 review, commenting "we do not have a vested interest...in...constructing major capital works. In fact, [some soft engineered] programmes require extensive monitoring...we are guaranteed an income rather more [from these programmes] than [from] sticking big lumps of concrete in the way of the sea"[20].

21. MAFF's strategic aim is implemented through a number of different 'operating authorities', as follows:

the Environment Agency is charged with overseeing the implementation of all aspects of flood defence policy in England and Wales, including flooding from the sea (defined by MAFF as "sea defence"). The Agency also has responsibility for establishing and maintaining sea defence works, and for flood defence operations on watercourses designated as 'main rivers' (see paragraphs 63 and 68), with this work discharged through its national network of Regional and Local Flood Defence Committees (RFDCs/LFDCs);

in particularly low-lying areas where drainage needs are more specialised, chiefly in east and south-west England, Internal Drainage Boards have been established under the terms of a succession of Land Drainage Acts dating back to 1930 to execute all flood defence works required in these areas, other than on 'main rivers'. In total, there are 247 IDBs in England and Wales, with responsibility for 1.2 million hectares of mainly agricultural land[21];

local authorities have permissive powers to carry out defensive works on watercourses which are not defined as 'main rivers', and, under the terms of the Coast Protection Act 1949, to take appropriate measures to reduce the risk of flooding from the sea. Where local authority jurisdiction includes the coast, the permissive powers granted under this Act extend to protection of land against coastal erosion and sea encroachment. Private individuals or companies owning coastal land are also entitled to carry out works to protect property and assets threatened by erosion or sea flooding, although they are not eligible for Government grant-in-aid.

22. MAFF's evidence included the following diagram indicating the current structure of organisational responsibilities for flood and coastal defence:

23. It is apparent to us that MAFF recognises only too well the considerable problems arising from attempting to co-ordinate the activities of these different organisations and individuals to achieve national objectives. Indeed, as part of the strategic reappraisal of policy undertaken in 1993, new co-ordinating mechanisms were brought forward by the Ministry, including Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs), as a means of addressing the problem directly (see paragraphs 81 to 85). SMPs set out strategies for coastal defence along specified stretches of coastline, and are the product of collaboration in 'coastal groups' between maritime local authorities, statutory agencies and other organisations with coastal responsibilities. As well as taking account of local economic and development planning needs, the guidance offered in SMPs is supposed to be fully compatible with the prevailing natural cycle of erosion and accretion taking place in 'coastal cells' along the relevant section of coast. These cells are discrete natural units within which sand and shingle-sized sediment is retained. A similar co-ordinating mechanism for inland flood defence exists in the form of Local Environment Agency Plans (LEAPs).

62. The existing organisational arrangements for flood and coastal defence are the product of relatively self-contained items of legislation (see paragraphs 16 and 17), formulated at a time when socio-economic and political needs were different from those of the late 1990s, and, arguably more important, when scientific understanding of the interrelationship between natural cycles of erosion and deposition, both in river catchments and at the coast, was far more rudimentary than it is today. For example, the Environment Agency has responsibilities to maintain flood defences on designated 'main rivers', while local authorities have duties for all other watercourses (other than those in IDB districts), even though we were told that often they do not have "the skills and resources needed to manage the rivers for which they are responsible".

63. We are concerned that the lack of public clarity over organisational responsibilities may have serious negative impacts on the delivery of vital services in times of emergency. For example, the Environment Agency's first public awareness survey in flood risk areas revealed that under a third of those approached were aware of the Agency's responsibilities, while during our visit to the Agency's offices at Orton Goldhay we were told that routinely a lot of time was spent redirecting public inquiries from the Agency to the relevant organisation concerned.