1 Flood Issues Advisory Committee 5th October 2005 Flood Issues Advisory Committee 5th October 2005 Sustainable Flood Management Pilot Study Adrian Johnson

1

Flood Issues Advisory Flood Issues Advisory CommitteeCommittee

5th October 20055th October 2005

Sustainable Flood Management Pilot Study

Adrian Johnson- MWH -

Ronnie Falconer- Jacobs Babtie -

2

Outline of PresentationOutline 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

4

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

Pilot Study MethodologyPilot Study Methodology

5

Review of FrameworkReview 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

6

Pilot Study SchemesPilot Study SchemesScheme 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

7

Pilot Study SchemesPilot 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

8

Pilot Study SchemesPilot 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

10

Key Points from Practitioner Key Points from Practitioner WorkshopsWorkshops

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

11

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

Key Points from Practitioner Key Points from Practitioner WorkshopsWorkshops

12

Principles: Principles: Summary of Scheme AssessmentSummary 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

Importance and Practicality of Principles

0

1

Importance

Practicality

13

Objectives & Indicators: Objectives & Indicators: Summary of Scheme AssessmentSummary of Scheme Assessment

Importance & Practicality of Objectives

0

1

Ove

rall

Socia

l: ben

efit

Socia

l: fai

rnes

s

Env. :

pro

tect

…

Env. :

resp

ect f

or all .

..

Econ:

affo

rdabil

ity

Econ:

fairn

ess

Econ:

jobs

and

wea

lth

Futur

e: u

ncer

taint

y

Futur

e: b

alan

ce

Importance

Practicality

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.

14

Definition

Principles

Measurement Indicators

Objectives

Definition as developed by NTAG

Principles, Objectives & Principles, Objectives & Indicators: Areas of ConsensusIndicators: Areas of Consensus

15

Principles, Objectives & Indicators: Principles, Objectives & Indicators: Areas of ConsensusAreas of Consensus

Definition

Principles


Objectives

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...

16

Recommendations: PrinciplesRecommendations: Principles

No. Principle Recommendation

1. Scope Delete from the list of principles and instead add qualifyingcomment under the definition of SFM.

2. Policy Keep this principle but re-name it ‘Strategic Approach’.

Add in a requirement to include SEA/STA, at catchment level

3. Responsibilities Amend wording to “All stakeholders should be actively engagedin and share responsibility for achieving SFM”

4. Decision-making

Acknowledge that agreement on decision-making process will be part of learningprocess.

7. Options Remove reference to ‘all possible’ options

Combine Principles4 and 7 to createone, re-named‘Options Appraisal’

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

17

Recommendations: PrinciplesRecommendations: PrinciplesNo. Principle Recommendation

5. Uncertainty Remove some sub-clauses but retain the reference to land use

Clarify references to the different types of uncertainty; and

Consider whether to add in a more explicit reference to ‘risk’

6. Resources

8. Environment

Consider deletion of Principles 6 and 8, as they are covered anddriven by the Environment Objectives

9. Multiple Benefits No change proposed

10. Openness Minor amendment

11. Democracy Amend wording to “SFM should promote effective communityengagement …”. Consider including a commitment to avoidingPublic Enquiries, by developing better stakeholder dialogue

12. Simplicity Amend wording to: “Implementation of sustainable floodmanagement should be understandable, aim for ease ofdelivery, and promote continual learning and sharing ofknowledge”

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

18

Principles, Objectives & Indicators: Principles, Objectives & Indicators: Areas of ConsensusAreas of Consensus

Definition

Principles


Objectives

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

Indicators for Objectives

Important

Fact

sM

easu

rab

le

Pra

ctic

al

Less important

Indicators for Objective 1

1(i) social impact

Important

Fact

sM

easu

rab

le

Pra

ctic

al

1(ii) damage

1(iii) travel

1(iv) production

Less important

3

1

0

0 4

plus indicators for Objective 2

1(i) social impact

2a(i) benefits

Important

Fact

sM

easu

rab

le

Pra

ctic

al

1(ii) damage

1(iii) travel

1(iv) production

2a(ii) community

2b(i) access

2b(ii) pay:benefit

Less important

3

2

3

2 6


1(i) social impact

3a(i) water

3b(ii) env impact

3a(ii) GHG

3b(i) BAP targets

2a(i) benefits

Important

Fact

sM

easu

rab

le

Pra

ctic

al

1(ii) damage

1(iii) travel

1(iv) production

2a(ii) community

2b(i) access

2b(ii) pay:benefit

Less important

3

6

3

2 10


1(i) social impact

3a(i) water

3b(ii) env impact

3a(ii) GHG

3b(i) BAP targets

2a(i) benefits

Important

Fact

sM

easu

rab

le

Pra

ctic

al

1(ii) damage

1(iii) travel

1(iv) production

2a(ii) community

2b(i) access

2b(ii) pay:benefit

3a water environment

3b other environment

Less important

3

6

3

2 10


1(i) social impact

3a(i) water

3b(ii) env impact

3a(ii) GHG

3b(i) BAP targets

2a(i) benefits

Important

Fact

sM

easu

rab

le

Pra

ctic

al

4b(ii) who pays4b(iii) fairness

4b(i) causes

4c(ii) wealth

4a(i) WLC

4c(i) jobs

1(ii) damage

1(iii) travel

1(iv) production

2a(ii) community

2b(i) access

2b(ii) pay:benefit



5

7

6

2 16Less important


1(i) social impact

3a(i) water

3b(ii) env impact

3a(ii) GHG

3b(i) BAP targets

2a(i) benefits

Important

Fact

sM

easu

rab

le

Pra

ctic

al


4b(i) causes

4c(ii) wealth

4a(i) WLC

4c(i) jobs

1(ii) damage

1(iii) travel

1(iv) production

2a(ii) community

2b(i) access

2b(ii) pay:benefit



5

7

6

2 16Less important


1(i) social impact

3a(i) water

3b(ii) env impact

3a(ii) GHG 5a(i) rainfall

3b(i) BAP targets

2a(i) benefits

Important

Fact

sM

easu

rab

le

Pra

ctic

al


4b(i) causes

4c(ii) wealth

4a(i) WLC

4c(i) jobs

5a(ii) response5a(iii) headroom5b(i) FP capacity5b(ii) affordability5b(iii) exceedance

1(ii) damage

1(iii) travel

1(iv) production

2a(ii) community

2b(i) access

2b(ii) pay:benefit



5

12

7

2 22Less important

Priorities

1(i) social impact

3a Water

Etc.

3b GHG 5a(i) rainfall

BAP targets

Important

Fact

sM

easu

rab

le

Pra

ctic

al


4b(i) causes

4a(i) WLC

5a(ii) response5a(iii) headroom5b(i) FP capacity5b(ii) affordability5b(iii) exceedance

1(ii) damage

1(iii) travel

1(iv) production

2a(ii) community

2b(i) access

Less important



Priorities for research

Link to other systems

Link to WFD planning

31

Options

Alternative proposals

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

National level: where performance can

be linked to a broader set of indicators

Implemented proposals

Targets

= indicator

Use of IndicatorsUse of Indicators

32

Use of thresholds to demonstrate performance and to compare options

Objectives Indicators ProjectSpecific Issues

Exi

stin

gth

resh

old Description of

Option

Rev

ised

Th

resh

old

Overall 1 (i),

1 (ii)

Etc.

Social 2 (i)

2 (ii), etc.

Environmental 3 (i), etc

Economic 4 (i), etc.

Future 5 (i), etc. Col

our

code

s fo

r ea

ch in

dica

tor

Col

our

code

s to

sho

wpe

rfor

man

ce

List projectspecificissues as

relevant toeach

measurementindicator

Listcharacteristicsoptions issuesas relevant to

eachmeasurement

indicator

Revised Thresholdsfor Each Option

Subset ofindicators usedfor optioncomparison

Exi

stin

gT

hres

hold

s

Req

uire

dT

hres

hold

s

Opt

ion

1

Opt

ion

2

Opt

ion

3

Opt

ion

4

Indicator 1

Indicator 2

Indicator 3

Etc.

33

Reporting and CommentsReporting 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)

34

The Way Forward: The Way Forward: RefinementRefinement

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

35

The Way Forward: The Way Forward: ConsultationConsultation

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.

36

The Way Forward: The Way Forward: ImplementationImplementation

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

Documents

1 Flood Issues Advisory Committee 5th October 2005 Flood Issues Advisory Committee 5th October 2005 Sustainable Flood Management Pilot Study Adrian Johnson