Joint Defra/EA FCERM R&D Programme: Strategy and Policy Development Theme overview

Joint Programme Structure

SPD Theme objectives Theme covers areas of strategic national interest and areas of developing policy related to FCERM. ‘Risk from flooding and coastal erosion is managed in a way which furthers sustainable development’

SPD Theme objectives Development of integrated approaches to all forms of flooding Better understanding of land management Broadening environmental and social outcomes Better understanding of adaptation tools Reviewing and development of risk assessment and guidance Responding to, or taking account of future climate change Building better stakeholder engagement Land use planning Encouraging and incentivising increased resilience to flooding Horizon scanning and long-term policy needs

Recent SPD Theme projects FD2621: Distributional consequences for flood risk management: -Flood insurance – more risk-based, better understanding of the beneficiaries and losers from FRM in UK to inform flood risk policy FD2651: Review of the pilot flood protection scheme in a recently flooded area -Assessing the effectiveness of govt grants to householders to install property-level measures following a flood (in situ effectiveness of measures, factors influencing successful deployment in a flood, impact of flood on attitudes etc)

Recent SPD Theme projects FD2643: Solutions for joint funding of surface water schemes: -Addressing the move to local flood risk management and for coordinated approaches from different partnerering organisations. Overcoming the barriers of different funding mechanisms, processes and cycles. FD2656: Taking a strategic approach to investment in FCERM -Developing case studies and tools to assist LLFAs develop robust investment plans, align stakholders and develop joint funding solutions under the new partnership approach to funding

Recent SPD Theme projects FD2649: Water retrofitting policies outlook: -Social research aiming to understand the barriers to adoption of retrofit options for water availability, surface water management and flood risk management. FD2655: National risk assessment – east coast flooding impact assessment -Improving models of a severe east coast flood with population data and other GIS information layers to improve the National Risk Assessment and emergency planning response

SPD Theme future priorities Emergency preparedness A risk assessment process for categorising small reservoirs needs to be developed to meet requirements of the Flood and Water Management Act. Whilst not required for 2-3 years, evidence is required now to ensure a low-impact regulatory burden. Funding, Outcomes and Insurance Surafce water risk modelling with a view to creating a single, probabilistic assessment of flood risk (potentially at individual property level). Individual and community attitudes and responses to the universal availability of flood risk information. Behaviour and Innovation Following evaluation of Coastal Pathfinders project, gather further evidence to understand how coastal adaptation should be funded in the future. Greater understanding of the costs and benefits of ‘roll back/lease back’ to local authorities. Evaluation of property-level grant schemes is required to understand their cost-effectiveness and barriers to uptake, and to identify the most effective approaches to take in the future. As we move towards payment for outcomes, we have a greater need to understand how we can encourage insurers to make insurance more affordable.

SPD Theme future priorities Better Institutional Frameworks There is a need to understand how the multitude of flood risk plans that currently exist relate to each other in order that they can be rationalised. There is a need to understand the longer-term implications of taking flood risk regulations forward Further evidence on the costs and benefits of surface water management (eg ‘blue corridors’) is required. Evidence is required to understand the behavioural aspects of Payment for Outcomes – what do people understand? What are the cultural barriers? How do decision makers use the evidence? To realise the localism/Big Society agenda we need to better understand how well equipped local groups are to understand FRM problems and how organised they are to take FRM forward. How do local groups use and interpret flood risk data? How do we better communicate the issue and influence behaviour? How to achieve greater public involvement at the catchment scale to improve local ownership of the catchment and realise the Big Society vision? To inform policy on land drainage funding, we need to understand the what effects changes to funding options might have on behaviour and consequent environmental impacts. ‘Nuisance’ flooding (ie flooding resulting from paved gardens, particular farming practices etc). Is it a problem? Is it significant?