THE Government plans to withdraw funding from our existing sea defences and allow tens of thousands of acres of land, and thousands of homes, to be given up to the sea within a generation. I am very worried that this course of action will put lives and crops at risk within our lifetime.
The Humber Flood Risk Strategy, which sets out how this area of coastline is to be managed, is out of step with contemporary economics and important global geo-political priorities. Globalisation, climate change and food security should be influencin
g policy decisions in relation to sea defences and the protection of our country – not budgetary constraints.
I am concerned that the Environment Agency, like the Government, has lost its focus on why it exists. It talks about consultation, funding, the 1991 Habitats directive and a myriad of bureaucratic priorities, many based on EU legislation.
When £10.2m has been spent on the Aldbrough project and £7m on Paull Holme Strays, it defies all logic that the Government hasn't considered better use of the money in defending our coastline as opposed to meeting a European directive to maintain habitats.
What our Government should be concentrating on is serving its community, protecting homes and making sure that British business, whether commercial or agricultural, is as effective and efficient as possible. We need as much help as we can get to overcome the massive economic downturn we are all experiencing.
The Environment Agency has used a system called cost-benefit analysis to determine where it allocates its limited budget for sea defences. I continue to question this analysis. The figures used for maintaining and improving the existing sea defences are not accurate. I remain convinced that adding a metre to the height of the existing sea wall will not cost as much as is being declared. As a community, we have a right to scrutinise these costs.
I understand, for instance, that the annual budget for running the North-East region of the Environment Agency is about £50m. We need to question how this money is being allocated.
I am also concerned that much of the cost analysis is based on limited figures. For example, the Environment Agency has budgeted for using machines which stand idle for up to six months of the year. The annual running costs, including depreciation, fuel and labour, are allocated against each machine with an output of at least only 50 per cent.
I also believe that we should be future-proofing land and property values for the next generation. It is the value of homes and land in the future which should determine funding today; it is, after all, the same as any investment decision – what will land be worth in 100 years and can we afford to lose five per cent of the UK landmass because we cannot currently justify investment?
I think not. Nor do I understand the Government's argument about having to make a decision between defending industry, homes or farmland, but not all three. The three are linked inextricably.
As the Humber Strategy is the first of about 20 further schemes around the country, I feel we have a particular responsibility to ensure that the Government does its duty in securing our children's and grandchildren's futures, whether it be as homeowners, farmers or businessmen.
Because of budgetary constraints, Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has talked of having to make a choice between defending homes or farmland. In Holderness particularly, homes, farmland and industry are inter-connected. The catchment area of the Humber estuary is predominantly flat. If the farmland floods inland, so do the homes and businesses.
Many householders initially blamed farmers in the 2007 floods as water ran off farmland in to homes. The Environment Agency, at the time, talked about sacrificing farmland to store upstream water to save properties further downstream. South Holderness is flat. If the drains are full and the dykes run over, the water will move sideways and into the villages.
The only way to keep systems running is to maximise the capacity of drains out into the estuary at low tide. Fields need to be well drained. They are then able to soak up the water, just like a dry sponge.
Internal drainage boards do a great job of managing their responsibilities to make sure that the drains under their control work efficiently. Self-funded and with local knowledge, they provide excellent service.
It is, however, with the Environment Agency where we suffer from poor communication, little local understanding and insufficient resources. I fervently believe cleaning out channels reduces the risk of flooding. The Environment Agency appears not to.
As the strategy continues through a period of consultation, I remain confident that we will be able to put forward a convincing case to reassess a great deal of the strategy and ask fundamental questions of existing EU legislation as well as the roles of Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Government.
Ed Davey has been a farmer for 20 years and is group secretary for the National Farmers' Union in Holderness. He was heavily involved in the ongoing review between Government, the Environment Agency and the local authorities debating the Humber Flood Risk Strategy. A public meeting was being held in Hedon last night to discuss the issue.The full article contains 907 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
