Mc kinley emma_day_3_session_8 governance_analysis_sept2019
1. 11
An evaluation of current Flood & Coastal Erosion Risk
Management in Wales – Opportunities and challenges for
the pursuit of well-being
Wales Marine Evidence Conference, Swansea
September 2019
Emma McKinley, Meghan Alexander(Research Lead),& Rhoda Ballinger
Cardiff University and University of East Anglia
3. 3
Project overview
CoastWEB - Valuing the contribution
which COASTal habitats make to
human health and WEllBeing, with a
focus on the alleviation of natural
hazards
Governance opportunities and
challenges for aligning Flood & Coastal
Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) with
the well-being agenda, and other
relevant policy sectors.
4. 4
Project overview
• National scale & local
scale analysis
• X2 in-depth case studies
– Mawddach and Taf
estuaries
• Additional estuaries –
Loughor, Neath, Dee
and Glaslyn
• Key focus on saltmarsh
environments
• A mixed methods
approach …
@Coastwellbeing
Taf
(Carms)
Mawddach
(Gwynedd)
7. 7
Threats to well-being
245,000 properties are at
risk of flooding from rivers,
the sea and surface water
Ca. 400 properties
at risk of coastal
erosion
Flooding
attributed to
significant
health impacts
60% of the
population live in
coastal areas
Risk to critical
infrastructure
and transport
Sea level rise -
28cm and 62cm
for Cardiff under a
medium emissions
by 2080
Economic cost of
flooding and impact
to key sectors (e.g.
tourism)
Rainfall increases for
winter / decreases for
summer
Rising
temperatures
75% coastline
designated for
environmental
importance
Heritage
Coastal squeeze
8. 88
Research questions
1. What are the synergies & conflicts between governance of FCERM
and governance of well-being?
2. How can we better align and coordinate FCERM and wellbeing
agendas through multi-level governance?
3. What are the main drivers for change and stability in FCERM
governance? Where are the barriers / opportunities for implementing
change?
Objective - To characterise & evaluate current governance in terms of its
impact on well-being
9. 99
Methods
▪ In-depth policy and legal
analysis – what’s (not) said
and how
▪ Evidence repository
▪ Stakeholder interviews x40
▪ Wide range of stakeholders
working at national to local
scales within FCERM and
allied policy sectors
▪ Stakeholder workshop
11. 11
Characterising governance via the Policy
Arrangements Approach (PAA+)
Actors Rules Resources Discourses
Public, private &
voluntary sectors, and
civil society.
Formal and informal
legislation, policies,
guidance and codes of
practice etc.
Knowledge, financial,
personnel and
technical resources
needed/available for
FCERM.
Ideas and concepts which
impact and or drive flood
risk governance (e.g.
community resilience).
TransferCoordination & integration Cooperation & collaboration
12. 12
Evaluation framework
Process
▪ Embedding core principles of
Ecosystem-Based Management
▪ Integration
▪ Coordination
▪ Collaboration & cooperation
▪ Stakeholder participation
▪ Scale
▪ Evidence-based decision-making
▪ Learning
Outcome & impact
▪ Societal resilience
▪ Ecosystem resilience
▪ Economic resilience
▪ Well-being
▪ Uncertainty & flexibility
▪ Institutional capacity
▪ Valuation methods
▪ Resource efficiency
▪ Transparency & access to
information
▪ Accountability
▪ Social equity, fairness &
justice
20 core criteria
Benchmarks to determine the extent to which these criteria are
present
14. 1414
Strengths in governance – A summary
▪ Intuitive ‘fit’ between FCERM and well-being goals (especially resilience)
▪ Draft WNMP includes explicit reference to coastal adaptation and to the SMPs – and
discursive desire to do more to better link across the land-sea interface
▪ Discursive strength and desire to do things differently, key role for ‘policy champions’
and growing expectation towards delivery of multi-beneficial initiatives;
▪ Positive views towards the Well-being Act – seen as world-leading, ambitious, providing
an opportunity to engage range of stakeholders and potential sources of funding;
▪ Risk-based funding programmes:
▪ 4 year capital budget for FCERM programme / 3 year for CRMP
▪ The ability to demonstrate wider benefits is strongly encouraged
▪ NFM must be short-listed
15. 1515
Strengths in governance – A summary
• Policy alignment between FCERM and Natural Resources Policy – reducing the risk of
flooding is recognised as a key challenge for SMNR. Better coastal habitat flood
management a priority area for action. Aligned priorities towards nature-based
approaches.
• Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems duty included within Environment (Wales) Act
2016
• Area statements have the potential to bridge activities across stakeholder groups – fuzzy
boundaries between land and sea.
• Improvements to risk assessment and future monitoring - Flood Risk Assessment Wales
(FRAW) and Wales Coastal Monitoring Centre
• “Brexit” as a driver and opportunity to bridge agriculture and FCERM agendas –
“Sustainable farming and our Land” and proposed reforms to payments for ecosystem
services and sustainable land management
16. 1616
Weaknesses & challenges
• Criticisms of CRMP – 3 years and available to Local Authorities only. Is it really
supporting adaptation?
• Difficulties funding innovative proposals (e.g. Fairbourne Community Interest
Company) or works involving decommissioning of assets (e.g. Newgale)
• Risk-averse and resource-constrained public sector constrains proactive
adaptation;
• Complexity - Managed realignment / Natural Habitat Creation Plan needs to
navigate multiple land owners + lack of awareness of SMPs
17. 1717
Weaknesses & challenges
• Who should lead? Local vs national – issues of reputational risk. Calls for a united front in
initiating ‘difficult conversations’ about managed realignment.
• Legislative rigidity – e.g. Duty to maintain Public Rights of Way incompatible with dynamic
coastlines
• Opportunities to collaborate are often constrained by budget silos, variable planning cycles
and priorities/remits across actors (e.g. Network Rail 5yr funding cycles for asset
maintenance, not enhancement).
• Resources – “doing more for less” and/or “doing things differently”
“…lack of resources means that nobody can actually fully commit to that
collaboration, you know the day to day job takes precedent so quite a lot of
opportunities are missed because nobody has got time or the resources to do
more work in these areas” [WLGA]
18. 1818
Weaknesses & challenges
▪ “No one organisation is fully embracing the act” (Future
Generations Commissioner, 2018)
▪ Majority of public bodies are stuck in their core
business
▪ Raising FCERM up the well-being agenda – ad hoc
consideration across PSBs
▪ The ‘teeth’ of the Well-being Act is being called into
question – what are the implications of this?
“the 2015 act does more than prescribe a high-level
target duty which is deliberately vague, general and
aspirational”
“…there’s this big gap between policy and front-line
delivery which is what we’re experiencing with the
wellbeing act” [Gwynedd Council]
20. 20
Preliminary recommendations
▪ There needs to be a better balance between decarbonisation and adaptation
agendas – given climate inertia, adaptation is essential TODAY.
▪ A united front is required between Welsh Government, Risk Management
Authorities and elected officials in order to deliver proactive (not reactive)
coastal adaptation.
▪ Long-term commitment to funding – for revenue activities especially
▪ There is a need to encourage and support coastal adaptation schemes - clearer
guidance on what adaptative schemes may look like and what they might
involve should be provided.
▪ There is a need to create space for innovation (“Field of Dreams”) and well-
managed risk taking – this will require ambition, access to cross-sectoral funding
and other barriers to collaboration to be addressed.
▪ Adaptation requires a degree of legal flexibility – this will require changes in
current highways legislation and duties pertaining to Public Rights of Way.
Longterm
Prevention
21. 21
Preliminary recommendations
▪ Fragmentation in governance and policy silos remain – overcoming these will
require greater alignment of planning cycles and priorities
▪ Multi-beneficial approaches require access to cross-department, cross-sectoral
government funding – mechanisms to enable this are required.
▪ ‘Funding partnerships’ should be promoted at the sub-national scale. This will
require better communication of FCERM activities/’wish lists’ to those not
traditionally involved in FCERM. PSBs could be a useful bridging mechanism for
this.
▪ Mechanisms are required to incentivise and promote private-sector investment
in FCERM where appropriate.
▪ FCERM (and climate change adaptation more widely) needs to be consistently
embedded within PSB – NRW can play a central role as statutory members.
▪ Joined-up working requires better understanding of ‘the other’ – secondments
and joint-placements could facilitate this.
Collaboration
Integration
22. 2222
Preliminary recommendations
• There is a need for open and transparent communication with
communities living in areas subject to future managed realignment or no
active intervention, including the implications of these policies. This must
happen TODAY.
• Meaningful engagement not consultation –need to diversify the
approach to community engagement using creative and imaginative
engagement to ensure that the public are fully aware of the future risks
and can become actively involved in ‘adaptive place-making’.
• Resources and capacity building for community engagement are
required – e.g. training, developing new skillsets
Involvement
23. 2323
Next steps
▪ Project report to be published online
by end of September + Policy brief
Questions and Thank you
M.Alexander@uea.ac.uk
mckinleye1@Cardiff.a.c.uk
25. 25
Prioritising recommendations
1. Better communication and awareness raising
across all actors (WG, NRW, LAs, PSBs etc.)
2. Develop ‘funding partnerships’ to develop
plans with multiple benefits (across
government, third sector, private – not
community input)
3. Establish relationships with communities
before telling the news (funding implication:
this has to happen first)
4. Incentivising private sector investment in
FCERM (including utility and infrastructure)
5. Longer-term commitment on revenue and
capital funding supported by a long-term
‘wish-list’
6. Ensure future monitoring collects evidence to
feed into long-term planning
26. Sub-national
National
Local
▪ Welsh Government - Overall responsibility for FCERM policy in Wales. Establishes strategic direction
(outlined in the National FCERM Strategy for Wales) and programme of investment.
▪ NRW - Strategic oversight role, including a Wales-wide understanding of all flood and coastal erosion risks.
▪ Flood & Coastal Erosion Committee – advises Welsh Ministers on strategic matters of FCERM and provide
independent scrutiny of Section 18 report.
▪ Wales Flood Group - representatives from key agencies involved with flood warning, response and recovery
activities across Wales to consider flood resilience matters.
▪ Wales Coastal Group Forum - Representatives collective interest of coastal groups, supports best practice and
acts as a conduit to WG. Includes chairs from each coastal group, WG, NRW, WLGA, National Trust and Network
Rail.
▪ Welsh Government - as a Highway Authority, responsible for highways drainage on trunk roads.
▪ NRW – Operational responsibility for flooding from main rivers, reservoirs and the sea. Also a Coastal Erosion
Risk Management Authority with powers to perform coastal protection works. Responsible for managing
Internal Drainage Districts (x12).
▪ Regional Flood Groups (x3) - Comprised of LLFAs, NRW, Welsh Water and WLGA. Forum for sharing expertise
and resources. Conduit to WG.
▪ Coastal Groups (x4) - Non-statutory group responsible for producing, implementing and monitoring Shoreline
Management Plan (SMP2).
▪ Local Resilience Forum (LRF) (x4) – a collective of Category 1 and 2 Responders, with responsibilities for
planning and preparing for emergencies, including maintaining multi-agency emergency plans.
▪ Local Authorities – Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) are responsible for flooding from ordinary
watercourses, surface water and groundwater. Local Authorities also act as a highway authority, with
responsibilities for highway drainage. Coastal Local Authorities are also designated as Coastal Erosion Risk
Management Authority, with powers to perform coastal protection works.
▪ Water & sewerage companies - Responsibilities for flooding from water and sewerage systems.
28. 28
Strengths Weaknesses
• Wellbeing of Future Generations Act – world
leading + clear understanding of roles and
responsibilities + something to potentially hold
decision-makers to account. + comprehensive
• Schedule 3 of Flood and Water Management
Act + SABs for SUDS
• NRW Getting things done
• Growing interest in nature-based solutions and
delivering catchment-based approaches
• Wales is small!
• Good working relationships
• Ecosystem services and catchment-based
approaches advocated
• Data and evidence improvements
• Examples of success for multi-beneficial
schemes (e.g. Rhyl)
• Political willingness
• Public perceptions of hard engineering as more effective
• Need to involve communities much sooner
• Defences/assets in private ownership + conflicting priorities or
planning cycles
• Uncertainty around climate change making it difficult to act
• FCERM governance reactive rather than proactive, more urgent
action needed for CC adaptation
• Soft vs. hard engineering – difficult to know what is effective when
evaluating schemes (different timelines to measure success)
• Some stakeholder groups resistant to change
• Long-term funding
• Government prioritises other concerns e.g. education and public
health
• Engaging non-coastal LAs to be involved in CaBA
• Cross-border coordination (SMPs)
• Loss of expertise within local authorities
• Rigid legislation
Strengths & weaknesses
29. 29
The Well-Being Goals and FCERM
1. To what extent do
the well-being goals
‘fit’ to FCERM
objectives?
2. To what extent is
FCERM already
addressing the well-
being goals?
31. 31
The Well-Being Goals and FCERM
• FCERM is doing best in relation to global responsibility, equality, cohesive communities and resilience
• Perception that culture/language is the poorest ‘fit’ to FCERM
32. 32
The Well-Being Goals and FCERM
• Taking a binary view on how well the WB goals are addressed in current FCERM …