黑洞社区

The government鈥檚 climate change watchdog has warned that current plans for spending on flood defences are as much as 拢1.4bn below the level required to ensure that the flood risk for homes across the country does not increase.

In a detailed analysis of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) spending on flood defences, the Committee on Climate Change also warned the funding shortfall meant the government was storing up 拢3bn or more of costs as a result of avoidable flood damage.

In the analysis (attached right), published in response to the debate over flood spending, the CCC said there had been a 鈥渟ignificant fall鈥� in spending on flood defences since the peak in 2010-11, with the Environment Agency鈥檚 (EA) flood defence budget falling from 拢659m in 2010-11 to 拢521m in 2011-12.

鈥淪pending took a sharp dip in 2011-12 and hasn鈥檛 really recovered,鈥� the climate watchdog said.

Comparing current spending plans against the EA鈥檚 long-term investment strategy, the watchdog said an additional 拢20m plus inflation would need to be spent on flood defences each year for the next 25 years just to 鈥渉old constant the number of properties at significant flood risk over time鈥�.

It added that an extra 拢50m plus inflation per year would be required to 鈥渕ake headway and reduce the number of properties at risk over time鈥�.

It warned that spending plans for the current spending period were 拢380m behind the EA鈥檚 鈥渓east expensive scenario鈥� aimed at 鈥渉olding constant鈥� the number of homes at risk, and 鈥渕ore than half a billion鈥� below the amount the agency estimated needed to be spent to avoid risk increasing over the long-term.

It said that as a result, 250,000 more homes would become exposed to 鈥渟ignificant risk of flooding by 2035鈥�.

It added that over the next spending period, from 2015-21 funding from Defra will be 拢1.4bn behind what the EA estimated is needed to avoid flood risk increasing.

The watchdog added that analysis of spending on flood defences showed that every 拢1 spent on average prevents 拢8 in future flood damage: 鈥淭he current ratio implies that each 拢1 taken from the programme means expected future flood damages will be 拢8 higher than otherwise.

鈥淰alue for money will be less strong amongst schemes on the margin, perhaps achieving 拢6 in benefits per 拢1 spent.

鈥淏ut even at this more modest rate of return we can expect an extra 拢3bn in avoidable flood damages in future years because spending this period is half a billion pounds behind he identified need.鈥�

Lord Krebs, the chair of the CCC鈥檚 adaptation sub-committee, this week told the Guardian that cutting flood defence spending was a false economy. 鈥淢inisters are perfectly entitled to say 鈥榣ook we just don鈥檛 have enough money and we will have to accept a greater risk of flooding.鈥� That is a political judgment which needs to be made.

鈥淸But] in the long term these measures pay for themselves.鈥�

Meanwhile, Lord Smith, the under fire chair of the EA, welcomed the prime minister鈥檚 promise that 鈥渕oney would be no object鈥� when it came to repairing the damage from the recent flooding, but added: 鈥淚 hope he will apply the same principle to the longer-term issues about improving our flood defences.

鈥淥ne of the things that has worried me is whether flood defence is seen by the Treasury as a high enough priority.鈥�

A Defra spokesperson said: 鈥淲e have spent 拢2.4bn on flood management and protection from coastal erosion over the past four years.

鈥淲e will continue to build defences where they are needed.鈥�