Final Report to DEFRA - Jurassic Coast

Funding for adaptation: in the short-term, Pathfinder has established momentum
which it would be unfortunate to lose. Making modest and targeted Government
funding available to implement adaptation actions which have emerged from the
initial Pathfinder projects would therefore be very welcome. In the longer term,
however, a small, competitive fund is unlikely to be adequate to support adaptation
on the scale required. In the long-term, if the right values are ascribed to the wider
costs and benefits of coastal change, proposals for sustainable adaptation would
perform well against the principle of ‘payment by results’ proposed in the
Government’s revised funding formula for coastal defence schemes.
However, it is not clear whether such adaptations would be eligible for funding under
the current proposals, which seem exclusively focused on funding engineering
solutions. Our conclusion is that, in the context of fiscal restraint, the most realistic
way to fund adaptation would be divert an increasing proportion of the budget for
coastal defence to sustainable adaptation. At the very least, proposals for adaptation
should be able to compete on a level playing field with coastal defence schemes,
using a revised assessment of costs and benefits which addresses the long-term.
Who should pay for adaptation? What are the external funding options?
There is an implication in the notion of ‘external funding’ that Government money is
seen as belonging to it, while private money is different. This is reinforced by the
proposed changes to funding for flood and coastal defence which could be
caricatured as suggesting that ‘we (Government) won’t waste our money on paying
for unsustainable sea defences but you (residents/communities) can waste yours if
you like’. Whoever’s money is used, it will still be wasted money if spent on
engineering schemes which do not take account of long term pressures facing the
coast.
To communities and individuals threatened by change coastal defence may seem
like the only option. Telling them what they want to hear is an easy but short-sighted
option, and Government needs to work with local authorities to pursue the difficult but
ultimately more cost-effective route of helping communities understand the risks and
costs associated with different options. Ultimately Government money comes from
taxpayers, and they give some of it to Government to solve problems which can not
be solved by private action alone. Adaptation is surely one such issue: while there is
undoubtedly scope for communities and individuals to take more responsibility for
reducing their exposure to coastal change risks, there is a huge and ongoing role for
government to ensure that:
• good information about risk which supports long-term decision making is
made available to all
• actions taken by one community or area take account of the impacts on
neighbouring communities
• sustainable adaptation is supported by a regulatory climate and fiscal
mechanisms which reflect the fact that the coast is a national, not merely a
local, asset
• a national planning policy framework supports sustainable adaptation to
coastal change.
40