【文章內(nèi)容簡(jiǎn)介】 been devised as a policy response to one or more of the multiple obligations mentioned above. These are shown in Box 4 (piled from DEFRA, 2002), with the plans ranked in approximate order of significance to managed realignment implementation. Box 4. Plans relating to water management and flood protection in the UKPlanAgenciesPurposeShoreline Management Plans (SMPs)DEFRA (and National Assembly for Wales), Coastal LAs, EAStrategic coastal planning (defences)Estuary Management PlansEnglish Nature (and Countryside Council for Wales), EA and stakeholder partnersLinking conservation needs of estuaries with other usesIntegrated Coastal Zone Management Plans LAs as lead partners, EA and many stakeholder partnersBalancing defence needs with multiple coastal activitiesCoastal Habitat Management Plans EA, English Nature (and CCW), DEFRA, NERC, stakeholder partnersBalancing defence needs with conservation (Habitats) objectives Habitats Directive Management SchemesEnglish Nature (and CCW), EA and stakeholder partnersManagement of European Marine SitesBiodiversity Action Plans Many Implementing Rio Convention and UK Biodiversity Action PlanLocal Agenda 21 Plans ManyImplementing Rio Convention – society and environmentCatchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs)EA as lead partnerHolistic flood managementLocal Environment Agency Plans (very soon to be superseded) EA plus its key stakeholdersConsultation on local environmental improvementsWater Resources Strategy for England and WalesEA and many stakeholder partnersNational longerterm framework for water resource planningCatchment Abstraction Management StrategiesEA, water panies, and other abstractorsSustainable water resource useWater Resource Management Plans Water panies, OFWAT, EAMeeting long term water needsDrought Plans EA, water paniesMaintaining water supplies in severe drought eventsIn the UK’s progression towards its sustainability aims for flood and coastal management policy, two trends are particularly clear: there is a transition towards ‘holistic’, catchmentscale systems thinking, a response to the recognition that piecemeal, reactive action leads to unsustainable situations。 and there is an expectation and obligation of broader societal engagement in catchment and coastal planning and management. What are the implications of this context for managed realignment? Catchmentscale thinking: Flooding and erosion, and their consequences, are the oute of plex interactions between natural systems (the hydrological cycle, topographical and geological factors, the ecology, and so on) and social systems (., landuse patterns, the value of activities in floodthreatened land, flood response measures). In the UK, a relatively small and densely populated island, managed realignment is essentially a conscious intervention in both systems. The twin challenge is to develop a more integrated view of how these natural and social systems work and interact, and to provide policy approaches that match the scale of these systems. Europe’s Habitats and Birds Directives are instruments to halt and reverse the damage caused by society to the natural environment, and they have had very significant impacts on river and coastal zone management. Recent past experience suggests that they are both pelling reasons for managed realignment in the UK and also obstacles to its implementation (Ledoux et al., 2004). The regulatory power of these Directives has the potential to trigger social conflicts in areas where realignment is proposed as part of strategic shoreline or catchment planning (., Lee, 2001。 Jackson et al., 2001). Some uncertainty still remains about the interpretation of the European regulations following their transposition into UK national law, with the effect that all sides – operatives in coastal management, local munities, conservation bodies – have explored all possible legal loopholes or hurdles (DfT (2004) gives an example of the tensions, in the context of a proposed port development with pensatory habitat creation). As a consequence, the implementation of managed realignment programmes has tended to bee a longer process, more costly, and smaller in scale. It is likely that the Water Framework and Strategic Environmental Assessment Directives will have a similar process of testing, but their explicit inclusion of participatory engagement in prioritysetting from the outset may mean that some tensions of the last decade in coastal zone management would be attenuated. There is some positive progress in integrated policy approaches. Funding and flood management action are more streamlined than before, and some publicprivate partnership initiatives allow more flexibility and systemic implementation (for example, Norfolk’s Broadland。 EA, 2003). However, flood planning (CFMPs and SMPs) is still not linked with Regional Spatial Strategies and land use planning, giving an imbalance in statutory weight, and is not automatically subject to public consultation. Engagement, responsibility and accountability: The legacy of dispersed power and plexity in the UK’s flood and coastal management can be considered in a positive light. Partnerships across different geographical scales have raised expectations of multistakeholder ‘buyin’, and there is evidence of the satisfactory emergence of negotiated responsibilities and pooled resources for managed realignment projects (O’Riordan, 2002). Coastal forums bring together local planning authorities, munity representatives, and technical and scientific expertise, and while the different contributory bodies involved have different degrees of munity engagement, democratic participation and public responsibility, the level of accountability afforded by the partnership approach of such forums is high. The UK Government has taken a longer term view of future flood risk (Fo