Outline of Presentation

Flood Issues Advisory Committee5th October 2005Sustainable Flood Management Pilot StudyAdrian Johnson- MWH -Ronnie Falconer- Jacobs Babtie -

Outline of Presentation 1. Methodology 2. Scheme Summary 3. General Points on Draft Framework 4. Principles - key points & recommendations 5. Objectives - key points & recommendations 6. The Way Forward

Pilot Study Methodology • Independent Review • Scheme Selection • Desktop Study • Data collection / fact sheet • Principle / Objective / Indicators review sheet • Practitioner Workshops (forum for learning & feedback) • Presentation by Pilot Study Team & Local Authorities • Indicators within scheme context and general context • Collation of workshop feedback and interim report • Presentation to Avoidance Sub-committee • Draft final report based on feedback

Review of Framework • Overall support for the draft framework • Use of principles, rather than a rigid framework, should allow for creativity and flexibility. • Choice of 5 objectives supported - consider ‘integrating’ rather than ‘balancing’ elements of SD • Agreement on identifying need for indicators even if measurement not yet available - consider behaviour • Scoring/weighting can introduce bias and makes appraisal ‘appear’ absolute • Be clear about definition of ‘environment’ • Create links with language/methods employed in SEA, planning, and sustainability appraisal • Consider ‘no net loss’ + protection of critical assets

Pilot Study Schemes Scheme Selection • Shortlist of 17 flood management schemes • 5 Flood Prevention Schemes (FPS) were identified • Providing sufficient coverage against a range of criteria Workshop 1 - 10th August 2005 Perth FPS • Largest scheme completed to date under FPO procedures • Tidal risk as significant as fluvial • Wider catchment study undertaken • Major and minor watercourses, sewerage and groundwater flooding • Extensive consultation and Public Inquiry not required • High level of environmental and townscape enhancement • Extensive information and records

Pilot Study Schemes Workshop 2 - 17th August 2005 • Rothesay FPS • Recently constructed Coastal Scheme • High level of information available • High amenity tourist location • Moredun FPS • Total reliance on storage • Moredun storage facility adds to the attenuation provided by the existing Stanely Reservoir upstream • High level of information available

Pilot Study Schemes Workshop 3 – 23rd August 2005 • Kelvin FPS • Primarily direct defences – several locations • Retention of existing flood plains as far as possible • Created new wildlife habitats • Public Inquiry • Glasgow Strategy Drainage Plan (GSDP) • Deals with extreme ‘pluvial’ flooding in urban environment • Flooding from surface watercourses, sewers and overland flow. • Integrated approach involving multiple stakeholders • Addresses flood risk and water quality • Project at development stage

Key Points from Practitioner Workshops • Recognition of complexity of managing flood risk sustainably but • Draft framework too complicated for effective use • Consider rationalising components and indicators • Important to work with local authorities to establish: • existing areas of best practice • where changes in culture, process, interfaces may be required. • Clarify relationships between the principles and objectives • Address overlaps between the principles and objectives • Clarify language of detailed meanings and resulting indicators • The paper would benefit from a glossary of terms • Aspects of the framework apply directly to flood prevention but ... • Emphasise SFM provides for management at catchment level

Key Points from Practitioner Workshops • Use of measurement indicators: • Consider removing the indicators for the principles and replace with some means of demonstrating compliance • Concerns raised about use of indicators in decision-making • More work needed on combining indicators • Implementation issues: • Availability of resources to deliver multi-disciplinary expertise • Need for a forum to support: • ongoing education • a consistent reporting format, and • feedback between the SE and local authorities. • Provide software tool to directly assist practitioners • Review of funding arrangements, at strategic and local level

Principles: Summary of Scheme Assessment With respect to the schemes under discussion: • All the Principles rated highly in terms of their importance • Wider range of views on the practicality of implementing them • Some of these views were modified during subsequent discussions

Objectives & Indicators: Summary of Scheme Assessment • All Objectives rated highly in terms of their importance • Some differences of opinion on the divisions into sub-objectives • A range of views on the practicality of detailed meanings/indicators • Sub-objectives 2b, 3a, 4b and 5b appeared to cause difficulty • Some views modified during subsequent discussions.

Principles, Objectives & Indicators: Areas of Consensus Definition • Definition as developed by NTAG Principles Objectives Measurement Indicators

Principles, Objectives & Indicators: Areas of Consensus Definition • Definition • Principles: • Provide guidance on how progress towards SFM may be achieved • Assessment of adherence via measurable indicators is unlikely to be necessary • Likely to be used by the practitioners to guide the overall approach to SFM, and as headings under which to build up evidence. • Compliance could be demonstrated using a checklist approach at the organisational level together with periodic auditing • Appears to be some overlap between the content of the Principles and Objectives... Principles Objectives Measurement Indicators

Recommendations: Principles • Potential to reduce the number of Principles from 12 to 8, which would contribute to simplification of the framework • Remove requirement to assess compliance using measurable indicators

Recommendations: Principles Deletion of Principles 6 and 8 needs careful consideration as they still give valuable guidance on how to achieve the objectives that they match.

Principles, Objectives & Indicators: Areas of Consensus Definition • Definition • Principles • Objectives: • Current overall structure should remain. • Objectives outline the results achieved and it is results that should be measured • Objective 1 is the overall driver • Objectives 2, 3 and 4 naturally fit together as another set of inter-related drivers • Objective 5 reflects the impact on future planning - it may set up some opportunities (or constraints) for Objectives 2, 3 and 4 - and emphasises need for flexibility • Need to amend some of the sub-objectives Principles Objectives Measurement Indicators

Indicators for Objectives Practical Measurable Facts Less important Important

Indicators for Objective 1 1(ii) damage 3 1(iii) travel Practical 1(iv) production 1(i) social impact Measurable 1 Facts 0 0 Less important 4 Important

plus indicators for Objective 2 1(ii) damage 3 1(iii) travel Practical 1(iv) production 1(i) social impact Measurable 2 2a(i) benefits 2a(ii) community 2b(i) access 2b(ii) pay:benefit Facts 3 2 Less important 6 Important

plus indicators for Objective 3 1(ii) damage 3 1(iii) travel Practical 1(iv) production 3a(i) water 1(i) social impact 3a(ii) GHG 3b(i) BAP targets Measurable 6 3b(ii) env impact 2a(i) benefits 2a(ii) community 2b(i) access 2b(ii) pay:benefit Facts 3 2 Less important 10 Important

plus indicators for Objective 3 1(ii) damage 3 1(iii) travel Practical 1(iv) production 3a water environment 3a(i) water 1(i) social impact 3a(ii) GHG 3b other environment 3b(i) BAP targets Measurable 6 3b(ii) env impact 2a(i) benefits 2a(ii) community 2b(i) access 2b(ii) pay:benefit Facts 3 2 Less important 10 Important

plus indicators for Objective 4 1(ii) damage 5 4a(i) WLC 1(iii) travel Practical 4c(i) jobs 1(iv) production 3a water environment 3a(i) water 1(i) social impact 3a(ii) GHG 3b other environment 3b(i) BAP targets Measurable 7 3b(ii) env impact 4c(ii) wealth 2a(i) benefits 2a(ii) community 2b(i) access 2b(ii) pay:benefit 4b(i) causes Facts 6 4b(ii) who pays 2 Less important 4b(iii) fairness 16 Important

plus indicators for Objective 5 1(ii) damage 5 4a(i) WLC 1(iii) travel Practical 4c(i) jobs 1(iv) production 3a water environment 3a(i) water 1(i) social impact 3a(ii) GHG 5a(i)  rainfall 3b other environment 3b(i) BAP targets 5a(ii)  response Measurable 12 3b(ii) env impact 5a(iii) headroom 4c(ii) wealth 5b(i) FP capacity 2a(i) benefits 5b(ii) affordability 2a(ii) community 2b(i) access 5b(iii) exceedance 2b(ii) pay:benefit 4b(i) causes Facts 7 4b(ii) who pays 2 Less important 4b(iii) fairness 22 Important

Priorities 1(ii) damage Link to WFD planning 4a(i) WLC 1(iii) travel Practical 1(iv) production 3a water environment 3a Water 1(i) social impact Priorities for research 3b GHG 5a(i)  rainfall 3b other environment BAP targets 5a(ii)  response Measurable Etc. 5a(iii) headroom Link to other systems 5b(i) FP capacity 5b(ii) affordability 2a(ii) community 2b(i) access 5b(iii) exceedance 4b(i) causes Facts 4b(ii) who pays Less important 4b(iii) fairness Important

Use of Indicators Alternative proposals National level: where performance can be linked to a broader set of indicators Implemented proposals Targets The measurement indicators may in the future be used for three purposes: • To assist the selection of preferred options at local level • To assist in the prioritisation of schemes nationally • To monitor overall progress towards SFM at national level Options = indicator

Use of thresholds to demonstrate performance and to compare options

Reporting and Comments • Some comments received after presentation of interim report to Avoidance Sub-Committee: • Research carried out by Defra/EA on intangible impacts and vulnerability, plus Supplementary Note PAG3 • Use of WFD classification for water environment indicators • Clarify relationship between ‘flood risk management’ & SFM • Ensure emphasis on widening beyond schemes • Support to build on example of GSDP: use as benchmark to test added value of SFM to complex plans • Categorising indicators to highlight importance, practicality and research needs • Timescales for implementation: short-term to long-term • Need to ensure principles aligned to objectives • Consider use of ‘change criteria’ to aid refinement process • (Further ideas from SNH seminar held on 14th September)

The Way Forward: Refinement • The discussions that have taken place during the pilot study have led to a number of recommendations for refinement of the principles, objectives and indicators. • It is suggested that these recommendations are reviewed and, where appropriate, used to refine the draft framework prior to consultation • There is need for further work to confirm the precise ‘measure’ for each indicator

The Way Forward: Consultation • Some suggested topics for consultation questions: • Balance between the range of issues covered by SFM and the practicality needed for effective implementation • Issues covered by and wording of the principles and objectives • Whether the proposed indicators will provide sufficient information to assess performance • Whether the indicators are equally applicable to assessment of options, proposals and national progress towards SFM • Ideas for further refinement • Consultation questions will need to be framed the suit varying levels of awareness of the work undertaken to date.

The Way Forward: Implementation • Key general issues: • Implementation at strategic level • Impact on cost and funding routes • Implications for delivery timescales • Resource availability & training needs • Opportunity for further feedback from the local authorities: • Key legislative constraints and other barriers to implementation; • Arrangements for strategic-level implementation including the role of FLAGS, and links with RBM process • Funding needs for SFM beyond current arrangements; • Ideas for the most effective sharing of knowledge about SFM • Timescales associated with implementing different SFM solutions from the short term to the long term. • Explore further the success shown by the GSDP

Outline of Presentation