Flooding and Coastal Erosion Committee response to the Building Resilience to Flooding in Wales by 2050 report

1. The Committee has been established by the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, Section 81, to offer advice on any matters relating to flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM).
2. As a key element of the Welsh Government’s Programme for Government, early discussions were initiated in late 2022 on how the Committee might collaborate with the Commission in responding to the request for its advice on mitigating flood risks in the longer term. A key first step was the appointment of four members of the Committee to the Project Advisory Group. This was followed, as the workload progressed, by a series of workshops and consultations, including presentations by the Commission to the Committee.
3. This report represents the Committee’s response to the Commission’s final report, Building Resilience to Flooding in Wales by 2050 – Report – The National Infrastructure Commission for Wales which was published on 17th October 2024.

4. As a report prepared by a body without direct responsibility for flood risk management services, and thus prepared from an independent perspective, the report is to be welcomed. This applies especially with its focus on the challenges of a longer term timeframe to 2050. The report represents a good resource with useful links to examples of best practice. The report is innovative and bold, and brings forward ideas for consideration, which extend well beyond existing policy commitments and funding programmes. It has the potential to stimulate discussion about the changes that will be needed to ensure that Wales is well placed to respond to the flood risk challenges of the decades ahead.
5. In preparing the report, the move away from the idea of minimising flood impacts to embracing the concepts of adaptation and resilience is particularly welcome. The focus on equity issues is also admirable.
6. The report looks to shift from the position that the state will ‘do it all’. Given the scale of resource requirements, this shift in perspective is welcome. However, the shift is largely focused on communities. It is particularly surprising that there is little sense of a role for the business community, nor any sense of responsibility within it. There is the potential for flooding to cause major disruption of the economy, with profound implications for productivity, profitability, investment and employment.  With business investment in any year well in excess of government investment, with many business assets at risk, with significant flood risk management assets in private ownership, and with property developers having the potential to affect risk levels, mobilising the accountability and resources of businesses in collaboration, partnerships and joint funding should be a key priority. This dynamic is not captured by the report.
7. The report was prepared prior to the publication of the new Wales National Climate Adaptation Strategy. It will need to be evaluated against the proposals in that Strategy.
8. Many of the recommendations take forward previous reports prepared by this Committee on Resources for FCERM and on Legislative Change, together with our Committee’s advice to Ministers in responding to Section 18 Reports prepared by Natural Resources Wales.
9. Inevitably, given the level of innovatory thinking for transformative change, there are considerations of deliverability with regard to its recommendations, both in terms of whether the changes proposed will secure agreement, and whether the capacity, in terms of funding and staffing resources, can be put in place, particularly within the timeframes proposed.  A key concern is around the ownership of recommendations. It is not clear where responsibilities would sit in taking forward and considering individual recommendations in more depth.
10. There is now an increasing list of recommendations from a number of sources (the Senedd, Audit Wales, Professor Elwen Evans, NICW and our own Committee). Some of the recommendations may be more feasible than others, but there needs to be a balance between the ambition and the stark reality of Welsh public finances and public bodies’ ability to deliver. This also includes concerns about WG’s Flood Branch’s capacity to take forward all the various recommendations. There are also financial costs associated with most of the recommendations. Many of the recommendations require an up-front investment to obtain longer term benefits, with uncertainties in effective delivery where novel approaches are proposed.
11. The recommendations will need to be considered with business cases developed, so that their funding implications may be evaluated against other FCERM investment proposals.

Recommendation 1: Establish a new Water Commissioner by 2026 with sufficient powers to .....

12. This recommendation sets out a list of seven substantial sets of tasks to be undertaken by a proposed Water Commissioner. The tasks themselves broadly merit support, and bringing these together into a single organisation is an attractive proposition. This role could provide an influential agent for change in a rapidly evolving context. An independent commissioner could be seen as raising the profile of flood risk and resilience, and playing the key role of advocate on behalf of communities in flood risk areas. Having the mechanisms to make things happen on a catchment scale, with catchment co-ordinators, and across different organisations, would be particularly welcome. However the recommendation gives rise to a number of concerns:
    
    I)    The scale of powers proposed would indicate the need for substantial legislative change. Such a scale of change, if agreed, would be likely to require a Senedd term to put in place, so might need a target date for full delivery around 2030. 
    
    II)    Many of the powers proposed for the Commissioner already exist with other organisations. The delivery of some has declined in recent years due to resource pressures. Transferring them would need to be accompanied by a growth in resources if the Commissioner’s office were to fulfil the role envisaged.
    
    III)    Given the breadth of the proposed responsibilities, the resources required for a Water Commissioner’s office and team would in any event be substantial. As an example, the Office of the Future Generations Commissioner needs an annual budget approaching £2m. 
    
    IV)    The responsibilities proposed would imply a transfer of some functions from both the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales, and would necessitate a review of the FCERM roles of both organisations. 
    
    V)    The role of a Commissioner in relation to coastal issues is not clear, and would require further consideration.
    
    VI)    The role of the proposed commissioner in relation to the water industry would require careful consideration given the devolution settlement.
    
    VII)    Given the critical nature of FCERM challenges and responsibilities across Wales, the scale of resources required to respond to them, and expectations of responsibility and accountability, it is difficult to envisage arrangements where national co-ordination and leadership were to be provided from outside of the Welsh Government itself. 
    
    VIII)    Given all of these considerations, and certainly in the interim, there would be a need to consider in much greater depth what role a commissioner might play, and how a commissioner’s office could best add value in advance of the scale of legislative change implied.

Recommendation 2: Create a long-term 30-year national flood & coastal erosion resilience strategy by 2026 ....

13. This proposal is welcomed. While our Committee has championed the case for a mid-term refresh of the current ten year National FCERM Strategy, the case for a longer term strategy is well-made. Long term multi-year funding will be a critical success factor to its implementation.
14. While the current Strategy was approved in 2020, much of its preparation, and the thinking behind it, can be dated to 2018 – 2019. Understanding of climate change, and the responses it demands, has made huge progress since that period. While the Strategy was conceived as a ten year strategy, many of its measures were focused on the first few years, and a significant number of these have now been delivered, or are in progress. The significance of its measures as drivers of activity by all those involved in flood risk management in Wales will progressively diminish. There is a strong case now to initiate the preparation of a new Strategy. As well as taking on board the reports prepared by this Committee and by others, the new Strategy would allow the conclusions of the NICW report to be considered for inclusion within that Strategy.

Recommendation 3: Set up the necessary mechanisms to incorporate nature as a key stakeholder by 2028, giving nature a voice around the table and considering opportunities to enshrine natural assets in law .... 

15. This is an interesting and useful proposition, and merits further consideration. Its implications need to be more fully understood. It does involve legal change, and again full implementation may not be feasible before 2030. However, it should be possible to introduce mechanisms for progressing the recommendation in the interim. Landowners’ concerns of ongoing liabilities involving “natural assets” when entering into NFM schemes are well documented, and will need consideration in progressing this recommendation.

Recommendation 4: Ensure Planning Policy, as well as the latest TAN 15 (which should be published and implemented with no delay) avoids unnecessary development in flood risk areas and encourages appropriate spatial planning as well as more innovative development.  It should also establish a new nationally consistent planning performance flood metric and new reporting framework which considers all sources of flooding.

16. This recommendation is endorsed. However, it had been anticipated that the planning workstream, which has fed into this final report, would undertake primary research to quantify and analyse the land use planning issues associated with flooding.  The report instead draws attention to the lack of reliable data on numbers at risk, and has been unable to draw on a robust conclusion on the level of inappropriate development taking place in the floodplain, on the decision-making that has led to it, and on whether strict planning criteria are being met. Accordingly, the recommendation is limited in its ambition. Consideration of the role of the building regulations in helping to manage and mitigate flood risk is notably absent. This also applies to the role of Property Flood Resilience measures for redevelopment in flood risk areas. There is clearly a need to do more to capture data on development in flood risk areas and planning decisions.

Recommendation 5: Pilot and set up regional/ local catchment partnerships by 2026 (to incorporate existing river and coastal forums) to support a systematic and integrated catchment and coastal management approach.....

17. This recommendation is endorsed. The mechanisms for establishing catchment partnerships widely will require careful consideration and consultation, but the potential is there to build on existing initiatives within the short term, and to extend these to the whole of Wales over time. Cross sector collaboration will be a key to success. The recommendation goes on to outline the potential roles and activities of such partnerships. These will need further consideration. There will in particular be a need to review the role of the existing regional working groups, where the need has been identified to strengthen their governance and collaboration.

Recommendation 6: Establish a new Water Resilience Flood Forum for Wales by 2027 to encourage multi-agency working and support communities to both manage flood events and develop long-term resilience. 

The Forum will:

• Support the creation of community resilience groups by 2028.
• Explore what funded, independent roles for ‘Agents of change’ could look like in communities. Their role would be to work with communities at risk to build capacity, raise awareness and develop “grass roots” community flood resilience plans, drawing on a designated funding pot and pool of technical engineers and flood specialists for support.
• Investigate the provision of independent home flood assessments, offering advice on flood resilience adaptations and plans to householders.
• Establish a national resource sharing mechanism by 2027 that will support and scale pilot projects and examples, learning from successful case studies and current catchment projects such as the Conwy Catchment to demonstrate integrated approaches.

18. The principle behind this recommendation is endorsed, although there is a sense that the recommendation needs further development.
19. The current National Flood Forum which operates across England and Wales already provides some support to communities in Wales. There is a case for reviewing whether its offer in Wales might be extendable to move towards the wider aspirations set out in this recommendation as an interim measure.

Recommendation 7: Streamline FCERM plans into catchment resilience strategies by 2026.

20. This recommendation is welcomed. It is one which has the potential to secure effective and necessary engagement from the agricultural sector. However, existing plans and strategies represent valuable elements in the delivery framework for FCERM services.  It is important that this value is sustained in the transition to a new spatial dynamic. They also reflect Risk Management Authorities’ existing statutory duties. An agreed transition process will be needed. Ultimately, legislative change is likely to be needed, and timescales for full implementation will need to reflect this. Further consideration will also be needed on the issues raised by the extensive catchments which cross the border with England. Cross border collaboration will be needed. The emphasis on the importance of the interface will Local Development Plans, which reflect the boundaries of local planning authorities, is particularly welcomed.
21. There is reference in the report to RMAs needing to develop delivery programmes aligned with the proposed catchment resilience strategies. Also, that progress should be monitored and reported through NRW's Section 18 reports, which are subject to review by this Committee. In order to achieve this, the RMAs need quality data and information on which to base such programmes. Section 19 reports should be one of the sources that contribute to this process.  In addition, oversight by FCEC on S18 reports is also dependent on the data and information available, with Section 19 reports again a potentially important source.

Recommendation 8: Involve communities in decision-making processes related to flood resilience, explore the establishment of Citizen Juries or Citizen Assemblies by 2027 to provide a framework for new governance models, empowering communities to assemble and actively contribute to resilience efforts ....

22. The focus on involving and empowering communities more widely is welcomed. However, further consideration is needed on the mechanisms by which this might be most effectively achieved, with scrutiny of the evidence supporting innovative initiatives. It will be important, within those parts of Wales which benefit from having town and community councils, that these councils are actively engaged, given their legitimacy and accountability. It is important for decision-making to be open and transparent, but it is critical that this is balanced against being timely to ensure scheme delivery. All stakeholders and decision makers need clarity on who is responsible and accountable, and who is consulted or informed. It will be important, in establishing new governance models, that they are rooted in resilience and adaptation, given the tendency for some fora to be overtaken by those determined to resist adaptation.

Recommendation 9: Set up a new cross-sector climate change adaptation and resilience fund by 2026 with a focus on nature-based solutions to: .....

23. The principle of this recommendation is supported. Such a cross-cutting fund is badly needed. Current funding streams tend to be siloed and restrictive in terms of developing wider adaptation solutions. A fund will need to have both capital and revenue elements. While the focus on nature-based solutions has merit, there is a need for care that this is not at the detriment of the full range of flood risk management interventions. We must be able to use all the tools in the toolbox.  There is a risk of implying that we can manage the problems we face with nature based solutions alone. There is a place for concrete and steel and heavy engineering, in places, where the risks are high and the options are limited.   This links also to catchment based approaches. Significant areas of land will be needed to hold back water and flooding will need to be allowed in places where it will have less impact. Nature-based solutions, while necessary, will not be sufficient.
24. The proposal to integrate this approach with the new funding approach for the Sustainable Farming scheme (SFS) is particularly important. .Funding additional to proposed SFS budgets will be needed to secure participation, and to support additional delivery aspirations beyond current food production and habitat conservation goals.  
25. The report and this recommendation have not considered the range of issues linked with sea level rise and the future of communities or key infrastructure. It is understood that a further workstream is underway within NICW with a reporting date of Autumn 2025. As a result, there are no references or recommendations in this report around managing the decommissioning of assets and communities. Those are issues much wider than flood risk management alone, but clearly FCERM related activity will be central to that agenda. As such, it is important to recognise that a further set of FCERM related recommendations are likely to be received next autumn.

Recommendation10: Extend and align the current FCERM investment programme by 2026, scaling up investment in Natural Flood Management (NFM) schemes whilst also maintaining ring-fenced funding for flooding. 

 Long term funding and resource needs to:

• Address current funding shortfalls, align flood resilience efforts with other government departments, and move towards 5-year budget cycles to better fit long term environmental and resilience needs.
• Support sustained funding increases in staff, capital and maintenance funding for Welsh Government, NRW and local planning authorities to meet current and future requirements and challenges.
• Explore a range of funding such as implementing local levies through taxation to fund flood risk management efforts (local Levy and Drainage Districts are existing mechanisms, but wider application in Wales is novel and politically complex).

26. The recent NRW report on Long Term Investment Requirements makes a strong case for increasing and extending funding programmes. Alignment with other government department investment programmes will also facilitate smarter use of the totality of government funding. There is a good level of knowledge amongst practitioners about what needs to be done. The question is how quickly can things be done? Can investment keep ahead of the pace of climate change? The case for extending the range of funding mechanisms is a compelling one. In addition to those listed, the potential role of Community Infrastructure Levy where regeneration and redevelopment is proposed within flood risk areas would also merit consideration.

Recommendation 11: Explore and diversify funding sources by 2030 to offer an alternative to conventional funding streams:

• Pilot crowdsourcing and philanthropic funding, aligning with local levies, to supercharge long-term capital investment in flood resilience measures.
• Develop a business case for investment in flood risk management through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) initiatives.
• Introduce the concept of Nature Finance (biodiversity/carbon) credits to support flood resilience efforts; Explore a potential role for the Development Bank for Wales in funding and supporting flood resilience and related projects.
• Collaborate with the insurance sector to explore flood risk mitigation funding for the most vulnerable communities.

27. There is a need to maximise funding for FCERM, and to diversify funding sources. However, more evidence of the potential for success will be required for some of the more novel approaches, for example crowdsourcing and Corporate Social Responsibility as sources of funding, The proposition that collaboration with the insurance sector could offer financial resources for vulnerable communities is interesting, although it is not clear what might motivate them to do so.

Recommendation 12: Set up a taskforce by 2027 to explore how the uptake of nature-based solutions can be scaled, and landscapes can be adapted to a future climate – this could include the exploration of how funded landowner partnerships or catchment-scale land-use strategies could be created to enable landscape scale adaptation.

28. This proposal is welcomed. It would suggest a more sustainable funding mechanism for NFM delivery and would mitigate the dilution of proposed SFS budgets. As echoed within the report, a multi annual funding programme would be needed to secure participation.

Recommendation 13: Welsh Government to provide subsidies to private homeowners who are in receipt of benefits to build flood resilience at the property level including

• incentives for installing flood resilience measures in homes and businesses (e.g. discounts on insurance premiums, VAT-free schemes, group-purchase discounts in Business Improvement Districts).
• NEST-type scheme for flood resilience modifications, such as installing air vent covers, doorway barriers and water butts in homes, targeted at private rented and socially rented homes, and/or those on low incomes in high-risk zones.

29. The general ethos behind this recommendation is welcome. However, there is a need for a better understanding of the issues faced by low income households, tenants in rented properties, and small businesses. In addition, flood resilience needs to be applied at the community level, as well as individual properties. There is a need to find ways in which flooded communities can quickly bounce back to something approaching normality.

Recommendation 14: Increase awareness of flooding and climate change impacts by identifying opportunities to integrate flooding and climate adaptation and resilience into the school curriculums via the Curriculum for Wales. This might include incorporating flood and climate adaptation into the specification of relevant GCSE and A’ Level courses.  In tandem, implement a national education campaign to raise awareness across Wales about flood resilience and adaptation and why it matters to all, providing education on the interconnectedness of agriculture, flooding, and environmental management.

30. This is an important and ambitious proposal. However, there is a new curriculum coming in, and finding the time to teach, as well as the skills to do it, will be difficult. Full delivery of this recommendation is likely to be long term, but there is a strong case for early progress.

Recommendation 15: Support the development of blue skills and a new discipline for Water Environments by 2028, which captures expertise related to flood and drought resilience and water quality, with a dedicated institute leading research and innovation in this field. This should include the establishment of advanced education 2-year diplomas or degree apprenticeships in climate resilience/ FCERM, providing opportunities to retrain people with technical skills in other industries.

31. This proposal is welcomed. lt aligns closely with work being undertaken to take forward related elements of our Committee’s Resources Report. The current lack of FCERM courses for Wales is a core issue.

Recommendation 16: By 2028 provide training and support for local councillors, town councils, and community councils providing them with the knowledge and skills on flood resilience and enabling them to play a crucial and effective role in representing and engaging with their respective communities.

32. This proposal is welcomed. Again, it aligns closely with our Committee’s Resources Report.

Recommendation 17: Establish open and transparent access to data by 2028 that are in line with open data governance standards allowing organisations and communities access to open-source data, so they understand flood risk better, including:

• Enable technological changes and early-warning systems to be used to alert communities and businesses in areas of potential risk.
• Create accessible data through storytelling, digital platforms and portals, designed to facilitate education, open dialogue and collaboration.
• Create and maintain a register of vulnerable residents locally, linking with other service providers.
• Set up open data repositories for all public data, unless there are overriding reasons why this is not in the public interest.
• Undertake a review to identify river health, biodiversity, and water quality information can be hosted in a central space and communicated/ shared with communities and organisations across Wales (e.g. data is accessed through apps or on public interfaces like billboards and information boards).
• Provide an opportunity to monitor TAN15 at a local level.

33. This is a welcome recommendation. It will be important that TAN15 is actively monitored, and that the data is accessible to the public. The Section 19 flood investigation reports prepared by Lead Local Flood Authorities represent a valuable source of data, but this data is not always accessible to the public. The report on this matter which is under preparation by our Committee may represent an early opportunity to move this recommendation forward.  Effective Section 19 reporting systems, together with open and accessible data in general, can play important roles in combating misinformation.

34. It is unlikely that each of the recommendations will be able to be taken forward in parallel. A way forward would be to concentrate on a small number of key recommendations, to explore how to move them forward, and to pilot some work.  In this context, recommendations linked to driving forward catchment approaches, to empowering communities, to funding adaptation, and to addressing planning limitations would merit prioritisation.
35. In recognising the need to use all the tools in the toolbox, it is concerning that there is little or no mention of the role of flood warnings. Further, there should be a recognition, when it comes to National Infrastructure (implicit in NICW’s name and purpose) that the current infrastructure that helps manage flood risk is part of our National Infrastructure.  So this is our flood defences, but very much also our flood warning system and every aspect of that (so the river gauges, rain gauges, forecasting models, warning systems) are also part of our National Infrastructure.  These elements of flood risk management infrastructure are often just not recognised.
36. There is a risk that this becomes another report that isn’t wholly acted upon.  It is to be hoped that NICW’s lobbying and advocacy role on this topic doesn’t stop with this report.

MB – 18.11.24