A blog from Coast-R Network lead, Prof Briony McDonagh on her 10 key takeaways from the written evidence submitted to the UK Government’s recent Flood Resilience in England inquiry.
Back in mid-January, Coast-R colleague Prof. Larissa Naylor (University of Glasgow) and I appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee to offer expert testimony on UK flood and coastal resilience as part of their inquiry into Flood Resilience in England.
On February 13th, the Committee published the written evidence submitted to the inquiry. There are 99 submissions from a range of organisations and individuals including the Environment Agency, The Wildlife Trusts, the National Flood Forum, Historic England, Town and County Planning Association, National Farmers Union, British Red Cross, Friends of the Earth, National Oceanography Centre, local authorities, policymakers, insurers including Aviva and Direct Line, businesses including Arup, and various university researchers (ourselves included!).
There are also a large number of submissions from flood action groups, drainage boards, parish councils and grassroots organisations, as well as a number of letters from people who have experienced flooding first hand, some on numerous occasions.
Taken together, the circa 500 pages of evidence make for an interesting read. The evidence is necessarily shaped by the inquiry’s terms of reference, which concerned grey and green assets, the planning system, monitoring, coordination, resources, funding and support (read the call for evidence here: Call for Evidence – Committees – UK Parliament).
Reading across the written evidence, here are the 10 key takeaways for me:
1/ There is widespread recognition in the submissions that having originally designed a national flood resilience system for defence, we now urgently need to work to better enable adaptation and build individual and community flood resilience. As the inquiry’s terms of reference recognise, this is likely to involve a mix of approaches including flood mitigation and climate adaptation strategies.
2/ Lots of submissions reinforce the need for Catchment-Based Approaches, integrated land use planning and ‘whole of society resilience’. But – as multiple authors point out – these approaches often not well supported by current funding mechanisms and policy making.
3/ Not surprisingly, Nature Based Solutions [NBS] – including NBS to stabilise foreshores, Natural Flood Management [NFM], reafforestation and restoring wetlands – also feature heavily as part of a portfolio ‘grey/green’ approach to flood resilience. As the Aviva submission points out, £25 million is being spent on green assets compared to £5 billion on grey – so we’re not yet at the stage that NBS is playing a significant part of the UK’s resilience strategy, but the submissions are generally positive about the impact of NBS.
4/ Several authors make the point that while the evidence base for NBS is now emerging, much more data and monitoring is needed to fully assess the efficacy of both Natural Flood Management (including Sustainable Drainage Systems [SUDS]) and Property Flood Resilience [PFR] measures. Monitoring data is also needed to implement effective early warning systems for surface water risks. This requires investment so as to establish long-term monitoring at the point schemes are first installed, and for ongoing maintenance of NFM and PFR measures. The National Oceanography Centre’s submission specifically mentions a dearth of in-situ coastal monitoring data.
5/ Community involvement in flood resilience and preparedness is crucial. Several submissions highlight the considerable knowledge and experience about flooding held within affected communities, while noting that lack of resources mean that community groups cannot always participate as effectively and equitably as they might. The challenge to government and RMAs from the Sturmer Flood Action Group was simple: “Listen to local people who know what the problems are and need professional help finding solutions”. There is a great deal of support for partnership working in the submissions, but also some criticism. As the National Flood Forum put it, “Partnership working may be effective after a flood event but decays over time. Communities report isolation, being passed around, ignored, or merely paid lip-service”.
6/ Working through trusted third sector organisations is important in enhancing community resilience, as are participatory approaches including arts-led engagement, intergenerational storytelling and ‘serious gaming’. Flood action groups are well represented within the evidence submitted (which is great!), but there is criticism too – the Country Land and Business Association suggests that relying on community-based flood response teams may exacerbate existing flood protection inequalities (the reference here is a single academic paper, so I’d argue more research is definitely needed on this one!).
7/ Almost everyone agrees that stronger regulation and policy is needed to deliver flood resilience. Multiple submissions (e.g. National Flood Forum, The Wildlife Trusts and several from academic researchers) advocate for the urgent implementation of Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, as Larissa Naylor, Jim Hall, Paul Sayers and I unanimously did when we gave oral evidence to the inquiry on 22 January. We also all made the point at the Committee that Shoreline Management Plans need real statutory teeth. There’s also reference in the written submissions to updating Part C of Building Regulations (particularly in relation to PFR), and to urgently setting standards and long-term targets for resilience. Colleagues at the Tyndale Centre argue that “there are no universal approaches, standards, or criteria for recording adaptation” thereby making it incredibly difficult to adequately monitor and evaluate adaptation action. Several of the submissions mention insurance and Flood Performance Certificates, and there’s a submission too from FloodRe.
8/ Unsurprisingly, there are consistent calls for increased funding, including longer term strategic investment and multi-year budget settlement for FCERM investment. Existing funding formulas need to be reviewed, including metrics for monitoring the effectiveness of flood resilience assets and interventions.
9/ Alongside this, greater coordination and collaboration is needed within what is a highly fragmented system. Cornwall County Council’s evidence refers to “a culture of transferring responsibility” between RMAs. Individual householders and flood action groups report feeling passed from pillar to post. There are good exemplars in the written submissions as to where collaboration and coordination across stakeholders and agencies has worked well, perhaps particularly at a catchment-scale, but this needs to be properly funded. We also urgently need to ensure reporting mechanisms for projects and programmes support collaboration and sharing, rather than risk disincentivizing it.
10/ Taken together, the submissions provide a range of innovative solutions and examples from both the UK and internationally. Many readers here will know of or have been involved in delivering some of these; but some that will be new to you. As part of our work through the UKRI and DEFRA-funded Resilient Coastal Communities and Seas Programme, we’ll share some of the highlights through the Coast-R Network website and newsletter in the coming weeks.
