Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100 - 107)
28 APRIL 1998
DR GEOFF
MANCE, MR
BRYAN UTTERIDGE
and MRS KATHARINE
BRYAN
Chairman
100. I do not think that is for the Environment Agency.
(Dr Mance) Certainly we can respond to an inquiry
from them whether somebody has experienced flooding. We log all
known flooding incidents as they happen.
Ms Keeble
101. Are you putting any strategic advice to the DETR about
the long term plans for homes and the issues about flooding? Has
that guidance gone in?
(Dr Mance) We have repeatedly been in dialogue with
DETR as it now is, and previously the DoE, about the issue about
flood plain development control. What we have started to do of
late is to open the debate up about the design of developments
as well. This is not just a flood issue, it is a whole water cycle
issue. Draining house roofs to sewers, so they overload the sewer
system, shoot off into the river etc., is a problem in flood terms,
in pollution terms, but it also short circuits the natural water
cycle and stops replenishment of groundwaters for water resources.
So we are starting to open up the broader debate about the impact
of development of all the concrete and tarmac on the whole water
cycle and the problems it generates for flooding, for water resources
and for pollution and the benefits of trying to get a much more
sensible balanced approach to design. We are in discussion with
the Building Research Establishment as well about design standards.
102. Could you answer my question about powers? Do you want
statutory powers?
(Dr Mance) We would welcome some strengthening of
the impact of our advice on the planning system, yes.
Chairman: We will reach some judgments on that question,
Dr Mance. We have one last subject area to explore in about three
or four minutes remaining to us. It is probably the most important
point in a way, so Mr George?
Mr George
103. It could well leave a lot of the detail for discussion
if the worst effects of climate change were to occur. I am sure
that as you address in your evidence it is symbolic that Cornwall
is rising while England is falling, at least that is a fact that
we know and can predict. However, as you have explained, both
today and in your evidence, the problems the Environment Agency
has in predicting the future climate change are extremely difficult
and the best available evidence, as you say, suggests that future
change would involve more frequent storms of more increased severity,
that is the best we can say. Perhaps I can wrap two questions
in one here because of time. What efforts are your Agency making
to assess this, either on your own or with other Government departments
or in the international arena? That is the first, how much research
is going on? How much is the Environment Agency involved in that?
The second is that with increasing information one hopes from
that, how is that affecting the Environment Agency's own strategic
plans for the 21st century?
(Dr Mance) We carry out a certain amount of R&D
ourselves in relation to climate change, that seems to be very
focused on particular issues. Stepping away from that, the Government
has a multi million pound programme of R&D, I think it is
around 20 to 30 million pounds' worth of R&D. There is actually
an advisory panel on climate change impacts and we have a member
on that panel as part of the organisation contributing to that
wider consideration of the impacts, to steer the Government programme
of research. I think we have a reasonable input into that. Of
course internationally there are much larger sums of funds which
the Government itself is seeking to influence in terms of the
global research programme. I think through our membership of the
advisory group etc. we are influencing that wider programme of
R&D. In terms of its impact on our strategic plans, if I am
honest, which I ought to be with a Committee like this—
Chairman
104. Must be.
(Dr Mance)—So far, it has not had much impact.
The difficulty is turning the generality into a degree of certainty.
The first obvious impact and specific is not in flood defence
but at the moment we are reviewing the water resource needs of
the country and we have had every water company carry out planning
against three climate change scenarios. We can look at the security
of water supply for 20 years ahead against some planning horizons.
That is a specific example where we feel we have to make some
progress and therefore we are making some judgments. If we talk
to our continental colleagues operating in flood defence, they
found the UK's preoccupation with cost benefit analysis, and therefore
the strictures it places on us in terms of the judgments about
the provision of defence, somewhat bizarre. The Dutch almost by
statute have to defend a certain line to a certain level and cost
benefit does not enter into it. I think one of the difficulties
I have—this is a personal view, I have to say—is that
the uncertainties of climate change, I think make the fierce tight
application of cost benefit provision of defences very, very difficult
to sustain. We are going to be exercising in a much more difficult
judgmental area and our evidence so far, and the interpretation
of PAGN, for instance, the Project Appraisal Guidance Notes, is
that when we get into the judgmental areas we have difficulty
in getting approvals.
Mr George
105. You can justify the Thames Barrier in terms of providing
defence against a one in 1,000 year potential flood?
(Dr Mance) Yes.
106. One can imagine, without necessarily going through the
calculations, what the cost benefit analysis might be and agree
with that but you are also saying in your evidence that in terms
of breaching coastal defences your own evidence suggests that
you are accumulating increasingly evidence of the degradation
of sea defences. Does this not also impact on the actions which
the Agency is taking and encouraging others to take to protect?
(Dr Mance) Clearly in terms of ourselves it is securing
an adequate rate of reinvestment in the structures which takes
us back to the sordid matter of money again and how the funding
system works and providing adequate funds to achieve that. In
practice what happens at the moment is we tailor the capital programme
to the available funds and that means what we cannot afford to
do disappears into the future, it does not get lost, it just gets
put in years five to ten, ten to 15 of the programme. Given the
uncertainty of climate change, and the risk of failure during
major storm, with increased storm risk under climate change being
increased, every year that we delay adequate reinvestment in those
structures, it is hard to quantify the increasing risks.
107. Is there a timetable of review against the research
that you are undertaking in terms of assessment of likely impact
of climate change?
(Dr Mance) What is happening, and has happened over
the last few years, is that as the validity of the climate change
models—which are immense, they take a very long time to
run the computer models with the complexity of them -have been
refined, the scale of prediction has come down from the Northern
Hemisphere/Southern Hemisphere level to Europe, North America,
to UK and we are currently at the UK level of resolution in terms
of broad general averages, it would seem likely and certainly
expected that those model predictions will increase in resolution
over the next few years. But predicting so you put hard benchmark
dates in is very difficult because it is cutting edge science
driving those climate change models. In terms of trying to get
to quantify approaches for estimated future impact and therefore
investment need, we do need that degree of confidence in the outcomes
and that degree of resolution which is not currently being achieved.
It is watch this space, continually update, continually review.
Chairman: Dr Mance, we will take that message, watch that
space, but I am afraid we must draw this space to a conclusion
now though. Thank you very much indeed for your evidence. We are
very grateful to you for it and thank you again for responding
at such short notice on some of the issues which arose over the
Easter weekend in your evidence. We are grateful for that as well.
Thank you very much indeed.
|
