Supported by

Right as rain?

Councils have new fl ood management responsibilities at a time of spending cuts. So can they cope, asks Andrew Jepp in the latest of PF’s regular series of sponsored columns

T

he big freeze at the beginning of this year, combined with the globally disruptive volcanic ash that brought UK aviation to a standstill, showed the far-reaching effects that severe weather can have on infrastructure.

For many local authori- ties, such climate-based ‘Black Swan’ risks pose an increasingly pervasive threat. And, with the Flood and Water Management Act receiving Royal Assent in April, local authorities will also soon have increased responsibil- ity for managing, handling and mitigating fl ood-related disaster. Yet with prospective public sector budget cuts as severe as the weather outlook, how best can local authorities respond? An estimated 5 million people live in fl ood risk areas across England and Wales, making fl ooding a very real risk for householders and their wider communities – as well as for the services provided to them by local authorities. The new Flood Act clarifi es where the boundaries of respon- sibility fall and allows Lead Local Flood Authorities to tailor a risk management approach to suit their locality, working with external partners – and indeed other authorities – where neces- sary on anything from drainage to data gathering.

From a local authority’s per- spective, while the approach is one of partnership and

www.publicfi nance.co.uk

RISK REVIEW

collaboration, ultimate respon- sibility still lies fi rmly with the LLFA. Outsourcing is obviously nothing new to most local authorities and many routinely work with specialist partners on a plethora of services and functions – often to great effect.

But these new statutory responsibilities for managing fl ood response and reservoir capacity at a local level signifi - cantly increase both the onus on, and the risk for, LLFAs to successfully co-ordinate various partners and peer organisations across regional government. Planning effectively for weather and climate-based dis- asters – or, in fact, disaster of any kind – will be pivotal to local authorities’ ability to pro- vide consistently good services in the future.

Previously in this column, I have referred to the importance of organisational resilience in undergoing change. This resil- ience is equally pertinent when it comes to disaster planning. The snow and ice that caused havoc earlier this year are proof of just how disruptive weather can be. Failure to plan and fully embed crisis plans into the business model – driven from a senior level – is a slippery slope. While local authorities have traditionally focused on civil con- tingencies in terms of business

continuity and resilience plan- ning, now they have to bring business continuity management planning into the wider risk man- agement programme. This more holistic approach will help ensure a focus on vital assets, services and outcomes, while integrating with the risk management and transfer practices in place. The Act sets out specifi c requirements for local authorities in terms of managing fl oods and coastal erosion. It requires them to develop fl ood risk strategies relevant to their local area, with the aim of preventing the kind of devastation caused by the June 2007 fl oods, which cost billions of pounds. This more consciously risk-based approach can only be a good thing.

However, while these require- ments are a positive move in helping local authorities better plan for climate and weather- based risks, they also come at a time of great uncertainty across the entire public sector. With cuts of £6bn announced by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, it is uncertain whether councils will have suffi cient access to the capacity and skills needed to handle the wider col- laborative working imposed by the Act.

Embedding resilience into

fl ood risk management is all well and good, but it needs the

corresponding resources and know-how within local govern- ment to make it a reality. Further, authorities need to consider opportunities to build and max- imise major incident response capability through their partner and supplier relationships. If the events of recent years have taught us anything it is that the only thing we know for sure about unpredictable weather is that there is more of it to come. Instilling a risk-based, collabora- tive approach is a welcome step to addressing that challenge. But the real storm local authorities must weather is the altogether more unpredictable and trying climate of spending cuts. A combination of increased responsibility and increased reliance on partnership working will undoubtedly help improve fl ood prevention. But this carries its own risks, which authorities would be wise to take shelter from.

● Andrew Jepp is head of local government at Zurich Municipal

MAY 28–JUNE 3 2010 PUBLIC FINANCE 15

PHOTO: JOHN BOWLING Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28