Politicians go into overdrive about the flooding

The last couple of days has seen a huge amount of political debate about the floods. There is so much happening at the moment that I am still working through a lot of it and digesting it.

Firstly there was a Ministerial Statement by Liz Truss – a full transcript of that debate can be downloaded here. There is a lot in it and it is worth a read. I was pleased to see Liz Truss had said the following.

In the light of recent events, we have commenced a national flood resilience review to ensure that the country can deal with increasingly extreme weather events. The review will look at forecasting and modelling, resilience of key infrastructure and the way we make decisions about flood expenditure. …….  The work of the Natural Capital Committee, to which I have reappointed Dieter Helm as chair, will complement that. It will further develop the catchment-based approach we are now using for our environment planning, including slowing the flow upstream.

This is good and important as there is now a clear understanding in DEFRA that stopping flooding is a multi-faceted issue. It wasn’t that long ago that the debate was solely focusing on dredging and building flood defences.

allen-banks-wobbly-bridge

The Secretary of State refers to the Nature Capital Committee which chaired by Dieter Helm. The NCC is the independent advisory body set up to advise the Government on the sustainable use of England’s natural capital – our forests, rivers, atmosphere, land, wildlife, oceans and other natural assets. They clearly have a role therefore to play in the flooding debate. The chairman Dieter Helm has recently published a paper setting out the issues regarding flooding as he sees them. You can download and read his paper here. Helm sets out the summary of his case as follows.

There are three steps to the required rethink, and these are set out in this brief summary paper. The first is to work out how much flood defence we need, and what it should comprise of. This requires an economic assessment of the catchment systems and their natural capital. The second step is to create a longer term, sustainable asset-based framework and the associated financial basis. At the core are: a balance sheet; an asset register; a regulated asset base; debt finance; and a corporate structure. Third, floods defence needs a proper institutional context. Flood defence needs to be put on a stand-alone basis, allowing the EA to focus on environmental protection, structurally separating out operational, project management, catchment management, regulation and catchment planning functions. The paper brings these three steps together to propose a way forward.

In case you haven’t guessed – he is an economist! I’m not going to comment on his second and third points at this stage as I am still mulling over what it means but in his paper regarding the first step he says:-

Agriculture takes up most of the UK’s landmass, and it is both a major cause of increased flood risks and a major potential means to alleviate these risks. Yet agricultural policies and the associated subsidies pay little or no attention to the flood risk dimensions. Some particular examples include: the much greater exposure to rapid run off from the planting of maize; the soil erosion of such crops; the importance of pasture and grasslands on river margins; the burning and encroachments on heather moorlands; and high stock grazing densities.

The farming practices of the upper reaches of river catchments are especially important in determining flood risk. These are also typically the most highly subsidised types of farming, with the lowest agricultural yields. Thus the costs to outputs of adapting practice are lowest, yet they have the highest benefits in reducing flood risk by holding water. They typically also have the greatest value in natural capital for recreation, leisure and biodiversity.

In the Somerset Levels case, the changing farming practices directly contributed to the silting of the two main rivers, and there were demands for dredging to deal with the consequences. Upstream farming practices have contributed to the more recent flood events too.

This is important stuff – an influential Government appointed figure talking about the importance of land use and farming practices along with the roles they play in exacerbating flooding risks. It seems like only yesterday that saying such things was sacrilegious! It gives credibility to the comments of George Monbiot – see here for example and also my blogs about maize – see here for example.

Exton brook1

Yesterday there was an Opposition Motion on the Flooding led by Labour’s Shadow to Liz Truss Kerry McCarthy. You can download the transcript of that debate here. Again a long and interesting debate with many differing views, but importantly some members from both sides of the House clearly see solutions to the flooding problems lying beyond solely dredging and defences. This is part of what McCarthy had to say:-

Yesterday, the Environment Secretary welcomed Dieter Helm’s excellent paper, “Flood defence: time for a radical rethink”, which highlights the critical role played by land use in both causing and helping to alleviate flooding, especially the protection of natural capital in upstream areas. Pickering in North Yorkshire has attracted some attention this week, highlighting how efforts to slow the flow of water from the hills prevented the town from flooding this time. I know that that is not the only example. The Environment Secretary has said that she wants the results from Pickering to be used more widely, so how is she going to make that happen?

Dieter Helm also highlighted the thorny issue of how some agricultural policies and associated subsidies pay little or no attention to flood risk dimensions. The examples he gave included greater exposure to rapid run-off from the planting of maize; the burning of heather to improve grouse moors, as it reduces the land’s retention of water; and farming practices in the upper reaches of river catchments. Helm sets out how adaptation measures in these areas, such as the planting of trees, could have some of the greatest potential benefits for reducing flood risk.

Very interesting to hear what Richard Benyon MP (a former DEFRA floods Minister) had to say:-

One of the great knee-jerk reactions among many commentators—including, I am afraid, some Members of Parliament—is to say that the panacea for all flooding events is dredging.

If we want to improve the rivers, we must consider wider catchment issues such as land use management. We should bear in mind the extent to which farming has changed in recent years. If we look at a map of the Bristol channel two years ago, when all the excitement was going on around the Somerset Levels, we see a large proportion of Somerset being washed into the channel in a plume of silt. That was caused by farming practices higher up, not in the area where the flooding was taking place.

Undoubtedly there is a lot more in that debate that I haven’t picked up yet – here for example are Mark Avery’s views (the former Conservation Director of the RSPB) – he is particularly interested in the management of grouse moors and the fate of hen harriers.

Glastonberry 13

Finally, at least in Parliamentary terms the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee met to start of review of the floods and the lessons that need to be learnt. Unfortunately the first session was dominated in media terms by why the Chairman of the Environment Agency was in Barbados and not in the north of England – see here for example. I haven’t yet seen the full transcript of this session yet but you can watch it all here on Parliamentary TV.

The Guardian reported:- Screen Shot 2016-01-07 at 11.38.23Hopefully more will follow from future sessions of the Committee.

Liz Truss yesterday also spoken at the Oxford Farming Conference – you can watch that speech here. A lot about the importance of farming for food security and little about farmers’ responsibilities to the environment! In advance of her speech it was trailed that she wanted to give farmers the powers to dredge ditches on their land – see here. This statement has been met with disbelief from some quarters – see Miles King’s excellent blog here, here and see the second part of this BBC report here.

I spent some time a couple of days ago talking on the phone to Jeremy Pursglove (author of Taming the Floods) who I haven’t seen for about 11 years! We were comparing notes about what needed to be done to deal with flooding in a world where ‘exceptional’ has become the ‘normal’. This was my starter for 10.

  • Clearly some places need more flood defences
  • Upstream measures such as at Holnicote  and at Pickering
  • Much more attention to land use, for example in places where there are steep slopes running into streams and roads don’t plant maize here as the compacted soils will shed the water immediately
  • A grounding out of the de-silting / dredging argument
  • Decanalising rivers / reinstating meanders.
  • Allowing flood plains to flood – removing bunds which protect farmland
  • More trees in the uplands in the right place (i.e. not in historic landscapes or Special Areas of Conservation etc) but not more conifer plantations …..
  • A review of upland grazing so that ecosystem services can be delivered – this doesn’t mean no grazing animals but it might well mean fewer of them
  • And of course no development in flood plains

Interesting times ahead – despite all the noise in the system, the conflicting DEFRA announcements and some very entrenched and partisan views there is a real opportunity here and now.

 

 

7 thoughts on “Politicians go into overdrive about the flooding

  1. Hi Adrian, excellent review, and it definitely appears that catchment scale management of flood risk is the order of the day, though I’m not entirely confident that senior politicians know exactly what it means.
    I’ve been with the EA for over 20yrs now, and nothing that is being talked about now is new, indeed the bunny hugging side of the EA, I’ve biodiversity, geomorphology and fisheries along with a handful of enlightened engineers could of produced, and were indeed arguing for all of your 10 points years age. Unfortunately, serious engineering was king, floods were largely manageable and these green options were a bit wishy washy. On top of this land owners, and land agents were reluctant to consider change and largely denied they were contributing to the problem, or could be part of the solution. They was seriously reinforced and compounded by a mish mash of conflicting defra policies.
    Delighted that things are finally changing, but it’s been an exhausting battle. Word of warning and a challenge to all advocates of this alternative approach. We need to challenge and change “poor” land management rather than tolerate it and simply require mitigation measures that allow these damaging practises to continue; and the concept of slowing the flow and retaining more water on and in the land can either be delivered via an engineered solutions that does little in terms of multiple benefits, or they can be a truly mixed approach which combines targeted engineers to support a more natural approach.
    I see Pickering and Belford being used as examples of these techniques, but they don’t take the approach as far as schemes being trialed and developed in Scotland. A wonderful example has been developed for the Eddelston Water in Pebbles.

    http://www.peeblesshirenews.com/news/14140014.Eddleston_bends_save_the_Cuddy/?ref=twtrec

    It’s unfortunate that it takes the suffering of thousands, and sheer devastation caused by the recent floods to make change an option. Hopefully the work that the Tweed Forum is promoting and facilitating in the Scottsh Borders will be accepted as a realistic and viable technique to sit alongside flood walls, sluices, storage reservoirs, flood banks in managing flood risk in the future.

    • Thank you very much for your detailed comments – I agree with everything you say. Will digest your commentary tomorrow. I am just writing some else about the floods for tomorrow and thinking back to my time in the 1980s and 1990s when I used to sit on various Anglian Water and NRA Regional Committees. It was stitch up then and is now! But lets hope it is time for a change.
      Adrian

  2. Pingback: The continued growth in maize cultivation in Devon – A Dartmoor and Devon blog

  3. Pingback: Maize in the news again – A Dartmoor and Devon blog

  4. Pingback: Odd coincidences in the world of Natural Capital – A Dartmoor blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s