PRESUPUESTO DE EGRESOS DEL GOBIERNO DEL ESTADO DE MEXICO PARA EL EJERCICIO FISCAL DE 2008 EL EJERCICIO FISCAL DE 2008

In England and Wales, DEFRA is the lead government department responsible for flood and coastal erosion management policies, and in Scotland a similar role is ensured by the Scottish Government (SG). As a primary responsibility, Central Governments provide funds through grants to enable the implementation of FRM projects in addition to other national assignments. In the recent past, DEFRA has invested enormously in flood and coastal flood risk management schemes; £664 million was spent on flood defences during the period of 2010/2011 (House of Commons, 2012). Elsewhere, the SG invested as much as £462 million grants in major projects including flood protection schemes between 2009 and 2010 (Scottish Government, 2010). Despite huge investments in flood risk management, there have been further recent calls to increase flood expenditure due to more pressing needs (House of Commons, 2012).

Consequently, alternative funding sources are highly sought after including levies from LAs to help sustain the levels of funds for flood protection schemes in England (DEFRA, 2010). In view of this challenge, the introduction of the new partnership funding approach of flood mitigation schemes provides some solution. This scheme seeks to fund cost-effective flood protection options, including PLFP which are likely to be implemented on a large scale. This subject will be further examined in this research, and the SG will be interrogated on its strategy to promote PLFP uptake as part of its FRM plans.

Environmental Regulators

The Environment Agency (EA) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) have instrumental roles in managing flood risk in the UK. Similar to most countries, the EA and SEPA have tasks including developing policies, implementing and monitoring national strategies for management of coastal erosion and all sources of flood risk (Scottish Government, 2008; DEFRA, 2012a). At the district level, SEPA is responsible for District Flood Risk Management Plans which set out the national framework for FRM in Scotland. This in turn sets out the framework for local level FRM Plans. In England and Wales, the EA is responsible for Catchment Flood Risk Management Planning, where PLFP are now being integrated into the catchment management process. For example, the Thames Catchment Flood Management Plans

(CFMP) incorporates a range of plans towards sustainable flood risk management which include flood proofing properties and infrastructure in floodplains, to improve their resilience and resistance to mitigate flood impacts (Environment Agency, 2009b). In addition, PLFP are being considered with respect to short and long term flood management options; where there are no existing flood defences short term solution will improve resilience in all new developments, whereas long term strategies could include refurbishment of existing buildings to increase resilience and resistance to flood (Environment Agency, 2009b). In Scotland, the introduction of the new FRM Act places additional responsibility on SEPA, central is the delivery of information and coordination of flood risk management (Scottish Government, 2009). In some cases, the responsibilities of environmental regulators may overlap with various authorities, such as LAs and utility companies, and this implies greater need for stakeholders to work in collaboration and close partnership to achieve the overall goal of sustainable flood risk management.

Local authorities (LAs)

LAs have more localised responsibility for managing floods in Scotland. Although they have seen increased responsibilities in recent years, their primary duty remains developing plans for local FRM that are consistent with the national strategy. They perform local level flood risk assessments and management in supplement to the district plans, and with additional requirements under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, LAs are to provide Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA) to undertake particular tasks for each Local Plan District (Scottish Government, 2009). These LLFA are responsible for preparing and implementing Local Flood Risk Management Plans as well as developing local FRM strategies for their areas and coordinating activities between the various LAs (DEFRA, 2012a).

There have been some successes by LAs in implementing local FRM strategies, but this has not come without collaborative working partnerships with relevant stakeholders at various levels of the FRM cycle. Apparently, a good working relationship with the national level and other management bodies has led to successful implementation of flood risk reduction strategies at the local levels. An example of such project is the Eddleston Water which was carried out to improve natural flood management, and it involved a number of partnerships including the Scottish Borders Council (SBC) and

Dundee University, led by the Tweed Forum (Werritty et al., 2010). As a matter of fact, working closely together with other stakeholders has been the message from recent strategies in FRM, and SEPA for instance continues to highlight the importance of this tool (Scottish Government, 2010).

Utility companies

UK flood management policies clearly require water utility companies to assess flood risk from potential sources and implement measures aimed at reducing flood risk and their impact on the public (Scottish Government, 2009; DEFRA, 2010). For the Water and Sewerage companies, their main roles include maintaining and managing their water supply and sewerage systems to reduce the risk of flooding as well as making sure their systems have appropriate levels of resilience to flooding. Ofwat, which is an independent economic regulator of the water industry in England and Wales, has a statutory duty to minimise sewer flood risk to its customers among other duties.

Following the 2007 floods which recorded countless incidences of sewer flooding, the Pitt review made key recommendations including the need for water and sewerage companies to keep sewer flooding registers, which help form the evidence base on flood risk (Pitt, 2008). These data combined with other flood information will help relevant parties to be more effective in delivering their FRM responsibilities as they work jointly and share data.

In Scotland, Scottish Water (SW) has a primary responsibility for managing flood risk from surface water and sewer systems, and the approach taken to reduce potential flood risk is through its capital investment programme (Scottish Water, 2012). This strategy also points out the need for coordinated effort from relevant bodies including SEPA and LAs once surface water flood risks are identified. In addition, the economic regulator of the SW, the Water Industry Commission (WIC), plays a critical role in the partnership to help reduce pressure on sewer system and alleviate flood risk. Both the SW and WIC have duties to deliver sustainable flood management solutions, and given the complexity of factors involved in surface water flooding means that an effective working partnership between them and other responsible organisations is critically essential (POST, 2007a). These factors, including the rising number of buildings and people in our towns and cities, have over-burdened drainage systems (RIBA, 2009). As a result, managing flood risk from drainage infrastructure within our densely populated

societies has been extremely difficult; hence the SW alone cannot bear such responsibility (Scottish Water, 2012). However, SW has the mandate to lead in the assessment of surface water management issues in general, while LAs are tasked with the assessment of flood risk from sewerage system (Scottish Government, 2009). At the property level, homeowners need to ensure their property is maintained in good condition to avoid the possibility of contributing to sewer flooding problem.

A typical example of a successful close working partnership in managing flood risk is the Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Partnership (MGSDP). The MGSDP which consists of several bodies including SEPA, Scottish Water, Scottish Enterprise and Glasgow City Council, has the aim of providing a long term urban drainage strategy for Glasgow (MGSDP, 2012). The 2002 floods that inundated Glasgow was a primary motivation for forming the MGSDP, and since then the partnership has taken proactive measures to tackle flooding problems. For instance, the success of the White Cart Flood Prevention Scheme that now protects thousands of properties was down to collaboration between various stakeholders, and has produced an exemplary approach to managing surface water flooding in the city (MGSDP, 2012). In particular, the MGSDP has reduced flood risk to over 7000 properties, and has invested over £40 million in sewers to improve and protect water quality (MGSDP, 2013).

Emergency services

Emergency response is a vital element under the disaster management cycle. Figure 2.8 shows the cycle and illustrates the sequence of disaster management, with emergency response being crucial to recovery from flood event (Atkinson et al., 2006; HR Wallingford, 2008). Emergency response is a public task which requires all stakeholders, including the emergency authorities. The Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) provides legislation on civil protection. This Act applies to the whole of the UK including devolved administrations, and defines responsibilities in dealing with emergencies such as flood hazard (HM Government, 2005). Under the CCA, emergency is defined as “an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the UK, the environment of a place in the UK, or war or terrorism which threatens serious damage to the security of the UK” (HM Government, 2005). The Act provides the basic framework for emergency response, and it places responsible authorities in two categories. The first responders are those organisations at the core of

emergency response, and include emergency services such as Police, Fire Brigade, LAs, Government agencies (SEPA and EA), and Health bodies.

The EA and SEPA have a task to issue timely flood warnings in the event of floods, and also work in cooperation with other professional partners to provide integrated response to flood incidents. Likewise, LAs have a duty to work with the police force and rescue teams to coordinate the response flood emergencies, while the fire service also work with the police and others to plan for flood emergencies, and their most important task include rescuing trapped people. In all, flood emergency response procedure needs to be quick and effective in order to be successful, hence a good working partnership is vital (Lumbroso et al., 2008).

Figure 2.8: The disaster risk management cycle (Source: HR Wallingford, 2008)

Non-governmental organisations

The role of non-governmental organisations in achieving the goal of sustainable flood risk management is crucial. These organisations include community level flood groups, flood wards or volunteers and individual activists. Their primary responsibilities include flood education campaigns, that promote both better preparedness for floods and uptake of flood protection measures to reduce flood risk exposure (NFF, 2011; SFF, 2012). In

the event of floods, these groups have often been seen helping with emergency assistance to affected homes. The largest of community based non-governmental organisation in the UK is the National Flood Forum (NFF), funded by the EA (NFF, 2011).

A subsidiary organisation in Scotland is the Scottish Flood Forum (SFF) formed in 2008, and funded by the SG. Together, these community based organisations have helped flood risk communities to be more aware and prepared for floods. Through establishing flood action groups within flood risk communities, and instilling flood consciousness and resilience in them, they contribute to flood risk reduction. In Scotland alone, sixty-one community flood groups were established by 2012 through the collaboration with SEPA, SFF, local authorities, water companies and Emergency Planning Agencies (SFF, 2012).

Although the specific operations of community flood groups differ from area to area, depending on the demands, the core aim remains making flood risk communities more resilient to flooding and assisting in flood recovery. Typical examples of such groups are the Cockermouth Flood Action Group and Morpeth Flood Action Group who have had extensive impact on their communities through creating flood awareness, by promoting and sharing flood knowledge. While these groups play a pivotal role in reducing flood risk at the community level, there is a limitation to their scope of operation and they do not assume individual flood risk responsibilities. It is therefore imperative that individual stakeholders make efforts to complement the work of the community flood groups.

Homeowners and individuals

Despite the role of government bodies and non-governmental organisations in fighting floods at the community level, significant numbers of homes still remain at flood risk.

The need to minimise the dangers of flooding at the household level has necessitated a delegated responsibility at this level. Under the integrated approach to flood risk management, the role of homeowners in reducing flood risk exposure at their property is explicit – “homeowners are responsible for flood risk management at their property level” (Scottish Government, 2009). Thus, homeowners and individuals are expected to be more involved by being both fully aware of flood threats and prepared for such

events. This is an essential task for homeowners to protect their properties; however, this responsibility has been neglected by householders for various reasons (Werrittty et al., 2007; Terpstra and Gutteling, 2008), and this will be investigated in this research.

It appears that householders often put the responsibility on governments to fully provide protection for their homes. This perception is somehow based on the fact that governments have the overall responsibility to ensure adequate protection for their citizens, and perhaps people may feel this overrides their personal obligations.

However, floods cannot be stopped entirely and there has always been the problem of residual risk at the property level after the implementation of large scale flood protection schemes. In such situations, the onus rests on homeowners and individuals to protect their property from floods, and this burden is bound to increase given that future flood risk will rise. This implies that homeowners could be more concerned about their homes flooding, and the use of property flood mitigation measures can be instrumental in alleviating future risk (Bowker, 2007; Langdon, 2011; Royal Haskoning, 2012). The attitude of people towards using PLFP products, including their preparedness to pay for such measures is examined in Sections 4.5 and 4.6.

2.5.2 Stakeholders in other developed countries