Examination of Witnesses (Questions 800
- 819)
WEDNESDAY 30 JANUARY 2008
MR PAUL
TEMPLE, MR
ANDREW CLARK,
MRS ANNA
HALL, MR
ANDREW WOOD
AND MR
JAMES MARSDEN
Q800 Paddy Tipping:
I wanted to follow up your written evidence in which you comment
that the Environment Agency's flood warning system was inadequate.
I just wonder whether you can spell that out a little bit more
for us and then go on to say how you think it could be improved.
Mrs Hall: We reported that a few
members had actually received late flood warnings or did not receive
flood warnings at all. One particular member did not receive a
flood warning and then received a warning the following day saying
the warning had been repealed, but he did not receive the warning
in the first place. There is a definite need for the Environment
Agency to review their flood warning system and identify where
those problems have been caused. We have been shown individual
cases and definitely feel there needs to be a review. However,
we do think there needs to be some kind of better modelling. If
we are having these more extreme events then we need to be able
to work out where the problems are going to be and identify where
the pinch points are.
Mr Temple: Can I just add a point
to this. One of the things that come out of it is not the warning
of a flooding but the warning that many of our farmer members
have been given to say that the water levels are running too high.
We have seen a case in point literally this last month when, yet
again, some of these farmers have been flooded. It is how we look
at the risk before we get to a level of warning, how we monitor
the level of rain in these drains and in the rivers through winter
and at what levels should they be so that we can deal with the
worst cases.
Q801 Paddy Tipping:
So you need time to move your stock and move your equipment. You
have already raised your concerns with the Environment Agency
and their Chief Executive said to us that proportionately very
few farmers were on the flood warning system. Why is that? Is
it because they think it is inadequate? What is the reason?
Mrs Hall: As far as I understand
it, the figures they quoted were not just for farmers, it was
all flood warnings. There might be many people who did not receive
flood warnings who were not farmers and not associated with farms.
However, there might be large numbers of farmers who do not actually
need flood warnings. If you have got potatoes in the floodplain
and you receive a warning, what can you do? I would like to think
that large proportions of people who have got livestock in the
floodplain are still getting their warnings. It is getting the
messages to those people that is key. We are quite keen to work
with the Environment Agency to see if we can identify triggers
for farmers that might be specific so that we can get those warnings
out in good time.
Mr Clark: What we are concerned
about, and I suspect any member of the public is concerned about,
is we are in real danger of warning fatigue. If you look at the
weather forecast nowadays there is always a weather warning and
the same issues must apply to flooding as well. What we are looking
for is accurate flood warnings which are suited to farmers as
opposed to domestic properties or business properties where it
is pretty clear you can model where the floodwater is going to
come from. We are looking at a much more unpredictable system
and I think a lot of work has to go into that to ensure we have
got a flood warning system that works in rural areas of farmland
in a more effective way than it does at the moment.
Q802 Paddy Tipping:
So you are advocating for more local forecasting of the weather?
Mr Clark: If that is possible
I think it is absolutely critical in the future. It is not enough
to simply know there is a big weather front coming in, you have
to know where you are already in terms of flood rates.
Q803 David Lepper:
We have been finding out about the Lincoln Washlands scheme this
morning and there has been increasing emphasis on working with
natural processes to deal with flooding. Natural England, can
I turn to you first. You have been asked by Sir Michael Pitt in
his interim report to work with the Environment Agency and Defra
on processes like this. Could I ask what do you believe are the
most effective land management or collateral process methods to
reduce that risk?
Mr Wood: We would like to see
the nation take a much more holistic whole system approach to
all of this. One of the key components of that is to start in
the uplands and to restore our hilly areas as functioning ecosystems
that could absorb more rain, slow the rate of flow into rivers,
slow the rate of flow downstream and, therefore, give some of
the early warning that our colleagues were asking for but minimise
the impact. That is just one small step. Let me illustrate that.
In the 1970s and 1980s the uplands were very heavily drained.
Land managers put in things called grips, which are large trenches,
to run water off the uplands. If you block those grips the water
does not run off, it sinks down into the soil, you get the re-creation
of peat bog, you get benefits in terms of carbon capture and storage,
which would be good too, and the low range of cost of doing that
across the uplands is of the order of £30 million. I accept
that there is another end to the range which is rather greater,
but £30 million is five per cent of the flood risk management
budget, so there are things you can do cost-effectively. Further
down the system we have land managers still indulging in comparatively
poor land management practice that results in ploughing right
up to the edge of watercourses and so on, which simply minimises
the benefits of letting the system work naturally and adds to
the risk of what happens when floods occur. Finally, the washlands
you have been looking at this morning are a good example of an
intervention that can be made to work really well and at its best
can provide multiple benefits for the environment as well as flood
management. Wetland re-creation is another way to go with that.
We need a package of measures here.
Q804 Chairman:
Just before we move on to that, one piece of evidence that we
had which rather surprised me was somebody was suggesting, for
example, in moorland areas, areas like the terrain that surrounds
the City of Sheffield, that because sheep have become heavier
and, therefore, are contributing to higher rates of compaction,
this has degraded the ability of a moorland landscape to actually
soak up water. I must admit I found that quite a difficult argument
to accept because previously we had been hearing arguments about
the difficulties of light lambs. Nonetheless, it is amazing what
evidence you do get. I think you did raise the question that in
areas like the moorland terrain surrounding a major city there
are things that in all seriousness should be done to improve the
way that landscape like that can absorb water because it has been
argued that part of the reason Sheffield flooded—Sheffield
was deemed to be a low risk city—was that the land above
it was now absolutely sodden, could not absorb any more water
and, therefore, the runoff rate was much faster. Is that something
you have looked at?
Mr Wood: Not in the specifics
of heavy sheep.
Q805 Chairman:
No Weightwatchers for sheep, but what about the landscape?
Mr Wood: Soil compaction is a
real problem, not only in the uplands. It might be helpful if
Mr Marsden said something here.
Mr Marsden: In the area you are
talking about in the Pennine country, working with the water companies,
we are currently restoring those blanket peats, blocking the grips
and restoring the eroded peat hags. To cover what Andrew suggested
in answer to the last question also, 15 per cent is the estimate
in attenuation that would reduce the flow of water off the hill
which partly answers the question you are asking now. If we did
block all those grips we think that there would be a 15 per cent
reduction in the peat flow off there. Restoring the sponginess,
the function of blanket peat is a good thing, not a bad thing.
If there are too many sheep you lose the vegetation which, combined
with the legacy of historic atmospheric depositioning, creates
the problem that we are now addressing through this rather expensive
restoration. It costs in the region of £3,000 to £3,500
per hectare to restore just the eroded peat. More sheep, heavier
sheep, continues to erode the peat. We are restoring Geojute and
that sort of thing.
Q806 Chairman:
You, as an organisation, are under tremendous financial pressure
from Defra.
Mr Marsden: Yes.
Q807 Chairman:
What you have described is very important work. Have you got the
resource to carry it on from your standpoint?
Mr Wood: No, we have not at the
sort of scale that it needs to be done at.
Q808 Chairman:
So what is the deficit?
Mr Wood: I do not think I would
be tempted to calculate that.
Q809 Chairman:
Can I not tempt you? We would love to know.
Mr Wood: You can tempt me to what
we understand to currently be the impact on our grant- in-aid
for next year, which is about £12.5 million, although we
do not have the final settlement from the Department yet. We think
that the whole programme of the restoration of natural processes
will inevitably be an expensive one and, as an organisation, we
do not have either the resources or in some ways the remit to
attempt that, but if agencies were to be mandated to work together
the resources we would have collectively would be more than enough
to do this properly at little risk to the maintenance of more
conventional hard flood defences where we need them for the protection
of people.
Mr Marsden: Chairman, if I could
just add one other public benefit that would accrue. The current
runoff with the erosion of these uplands is actually adding to
the costs to the water consumer because the water companies are
having to spend vast amounts of money stripping peat colouration
and other things out of the water at the primary treatment works,
which is going to be a cost as we get into the next price review,
PRO9, which we are currently in the foothills of. Bringing together
multiple objectives and integrating them in ways in which we can
tackle this problem can deliver public benefits and reduce costs
and that is a key message from our perspective.
Q810 David Lepper:
Can I return to the NFU, and you are straining to comment, Mr
Temple. I note the NFU have said that: "farmers are prepared
to play their full part in reducing the flood risk".[2]
You said that in your evidence to us. What is that "full
part" that you think farmers can play? Can they play a bigger
part than they are doing at the moment and, if that is the case,
what sort of encouragement do farmers need to play that bigger
part?
Mr Temple: The farmers we have
here today all want to play a bigger part because they do not
want to see themselves put in the same situation. If you take
the issue of the washlands, we think it is a really important
part of water management. It is critical that you take this down
to the local level. You cannot stamp this from the top and say,
"That's the way it should be carried out in the whole of
the country", each local area has a different solution, and
farmers are more than willing to play their part in that. It is
all about organising and planning. Andrew defined the fact that
there are uplands and lowlands, and that is a useful distinction
to make because there is a distinction between those two areas
and how you manage that water. Lowlands have a much higher intrinsic
value to this country in terms of their productivity and I think
that has to be recognised. Farmers will play their part if the
value of what they produce is recognised. They recognise that
increasingly they might have a more important role in protecting
urban areas. In many ways it is the urban footprint that is creating
some of these problems, but they recognise that they can be part
of the solution provided they are involved in this process rather
than just used and provided they are compensated properly. I do
just refute one or two examples that have been given by Natural
England on the ploughing. Farmers do not irresponsibly plough
up against watercourses. By the deed of cross-compliance we can
no longer plough near watercourses. We have half of our land in
environmental schemes that could be a fundamental part of water
management. They take their responsibility really seriously. No
farmer allows soil to become compacted necessarily because it
is a fundamental part of good soil management to prevent compaction.
Mr Clark: I suspected the fat
sheep scenario would be played out and I have just been looking
at some Defra stats to check that out. There are five million
fewer sheep now than there were ten years ago and we have got
the same sheep population in England as we had in 1983. I suspect
the argument that having heavier sheep is not a viable scenario.
We very much feel that the introduction of environmental stewardship,
which has seen an absolute sea change in the amount of commitment
that farmers have to participate in environmental schemes since
March 2005, will bring real benefits backed by cross-compliance,
such as making sure that you do not plough up against trees and
field boundaries, you get real value on farmland from keeping
buffer strips. All those are things which have happened, and are
happening now increasingly, across all the farmland of England
at a scale which must have an impact not just for biodiversity
but for natural resources. My concern, however, is that there
is a collision between rural and urban, and many of the questions
you have put to us have been saying what can we do and I know
that we are a farmers' union and you will ask us what we are doing
in rural areas, but as farmers and members of the rural communities
we are concerned about what happens in urban areas because we
feel it is urban areas which are also contributing to the floods
we have seen. We would like to see urban areas also becoming more
permeable and concerned about holding up floods, holding water
in those areas and letting it into the watercourses gently in
the same way that we too are being encouraged to do. It is a shared
situation, flooding cannot be divided up into easy zones of urban
and rural.
Mr Marsden: Could I just come
back briefly on the stocking rate issue. I do need to be quite
clear. If you are to restore upland peat in the way that we have
described the stocking rate has to be zero. We have paid through
high level stewardship to remove stock completely from the areas
that we are restoring and that is what is needed on the rest of
it otherwise you cannot re-vegetate the moorland and in some instances
capital works through the utilities are being used to provide
other monitoring facilities as well.
Q811 David Lepper:
Mr Temple, you talked about playing a full part in being involved.
There are two particular schemes, and I hope it is all right if
I use their code letters, HA6 and HA7, that Defra have underway
at the moment. Could you tell us something about the involvement
of your members in those schemes.
Mrs Hall: This is in relation
to the land management project run by the Environment Agency and
also linking to the Ripon Multi-objective Project. We have close
links to both of these projects. In terms of actually on the ground,
our members have been involved in the Ripon project and a lot
of good, positive messages are coming out of these. There are
some things that I want to pick up on. It is about putting research
into practice and very much about now we have done a lot of the
background work we need to get on and do it. We need to do things
at a catchment scale to find out what works. There seems to be
a bit of a science gap. We can understand local events and local
flooding, but finding out what causes catchment scale flooding
and how we can reduce catchment scale flooding is a completely
different question. We need to try and put that into practice.
We cannot have short-term funding, these are long-term projects
that we need to look towards. Communication is also key, communication
with the farming community and working with the farming community
to come up with a community-based solution. The Parrett Catchment
Project, for example, is a good case in point. That is a community
working together with information disseminated through schools
and farmers feel very much a part of the solution. Also, policy
fluctuations can certainly undermine any projects in place, so
we need a strong steer from Government and a strong policy drive
to get these catchment-type projects up and running.
Mr Temple: Just to give you an
example of some of the degree of engagement in this. It is about
tapping into the local farming experience and the Environment
Agency staff, many of whom do feel very frustrated that they do
not feel listened to further up the chain. There has been a particular
element of dredging as a result of the flooding last summer at
Hedon Haven. A simple act of dredging has managed to reduce the
water level by a metre and with this last month's rain it successfully
prevented 180 houses that were badly flooded in the summer from
flooding again this year. That is how it should be working. It
is on the ground in the individual circumstances and each circumstance
will be slightly different.
Q812 David Lepper:
Before we leave that question of your involvement in schemes,
and I did ask about encouragement as well and you have told us
about that, in schemes, for instance, like the washlands that
we saw this morning, do you feel, representing the NFU, that the
current compensation system is fair for farmers taking part in
that type of scheme?
Mr Temple: My colleagues might
speak with regard to the individual scheme, but I think it comes
down to the level and value of production that is on that land.
Two years ago wheat at £60 a tonne would have been a reasonably
easy thing to compensate, but wheat at £160 a tonne is a
more difficult thing to compensate. Part of the question in this
is where will that price be or the value of that land in five
years' time, and that is something we have got to look at.
Mrs Hall: As far as we understand,
the current compensation for the washlands is negotiated with
individual landowners, so it depends on the particular scheme
and when the scheme came into play. We are in discussion with
Defra at the moment about the valuation of agricultural land.
The way that agricultural land is valued has for flood risk assessments
and appraisals, simply the market value at that time of that land,
and is discounted to take account of direct payments, so-called
transfer payments. We are quite concerned about this because that
is only the current market value, that does not take into account
the need to produce food into the future and the strategic value
of that land which is a finite resource. That is something we
would like to be looked at further. There are also a number of
planned washlands in this area that we are aware of in the Ancholme,
Bain and also Lower Witham. These are schemes that were discussed
ten years ago but, as far as we understand, they have simply been
shelved. We were talking to farmers at lunchtime today who are
quite keen for these schemes to get moving but, as far as we understand,
funding is just not there. These are schemes that have been worked
up and time and money has been spent on working these schemes
up by the Environment Agency but they have not been put into practice.
Q813 David Lepper:
Does that include a scheme for the Horncastle area?
Mrs Hall: Yes.
Q814 David Lepper:
Finally, could I turn to Natural England again. Making Space
for Water initiated, I think, some 25 projects. Is sufficient
progress being made on those projects? Could the Government be
doing more to ensure that progress is made?
Mr Marsden: Chairman, I hope we
made some clear recommendations on that score in our written evidence
and we stand firmly by that. We are involved in those but we have
identified some specific barriers to progress which we would urge
you to look at again in our written evidence. Those barriers remain.
Q815 Chairman:
Sometimes we just love to hear it all over again.
Mr Marsden: If you would like
me to repeat it, I have it here.
Q816 Chairman:
As a point of force, the greater accuracy is in taking part.
Mr Marsden: Firstly, the way in
which schemes are proposed, brought forward, we feel that process
inhibits looking at some of the more novel solutions we are talking
about today, and we agree with our colleagues in the NFU that
we too would like to see more washlands, but the current process
by which schemes are brought forward inhibits that. The second
point is the easy option is to go for hard defences. That is what
the industry, the engineers, are familiar with, that is what they
reach for their slide rule for. In many ways they do not know
how to quantify it. We have heard there is a science gap, the
potential effect of catchment scale solutions, and we desperately
need to plug that gap. The third point is the cost-benefit system
mitigates against these system solutions. We fear that with the
loss of the former regional MAFF engineers there may be a potential
for lack of consistency of approach at the regional level that
may also need looking at.
Q817 Paddy Tipping:
I just wanted to ask you about the stewardship that Mr Clark mentioned.
Does stewardship have a role in promoting a natural solution to
these problems that you are talking about?
Mr Marsden: Yes, it does. The
real benefit could be if you combine flood risk management funding
which, as Anna has said, can only pay for so much, with some agri-environment
scheme HLS funding. If you put those two sources of funding together
I can give you a very graphic example of that: create a new washland,
the FRM money would pay for it to be a winter storage area, add
the agri-environment HLS funding and you will get breeding birds
through the spring as well, but you will not be able to conserve
the arable crops. In terms of total public benefit we would argue
that is for the greater good.
Q818 Paddy Tipping:
Are Defra looking at this at the moment?
Mr Wood: Yes, Chairman. Through
the Stewardship Review they are looking at options. The bottom
line here has to be that farmers across the country provide public
benefit and where they are providing that they ought to be rewarded
for that, but where they are engaged in business that is not our
business. We need to draw that sort of distinction and we need
to use agri-environment schemes more intelligently to get the
maximum benefit from that and farmers can help us do that.
Mr Clark: I think there is, however,
a real tension that we have detected between those who are advocating
environmental stewardship for biodiversity and those agencies
who are saying entry level schemes should be more about resource
protection. Environmental stewardship tries to ride about five
different horses all at the same time and there are real tensions
between those different functions.
Q819 Mr Williams:
The Environment Agency is sometimes criticised by the agricultural
community for investing the great majority of their resources
in protecting urban and residential areas and not protecting agricultural
land. We were told today that the examples of washland that we
have seen that do actually protect urban settlements could be
used to protect agricultural land further down the catchment area.
Do you think the farming community could be involved in such mutually
helpful activities to protect other agricultural land by sacrificing
a certain amount of land that is now in agricultural use?
Mr Temple: I am quite sure that
farmers would. When I visited a farmer who had two-thirds of his
farm full of water, he said, "If it takes my farm to be sacrificed
that is fine, as long as I am part of the plan and I am compensated
for the loss at the end". He had no problem with that. He
recognised that an urban environment could be a more expensive
loss in terms of houses and flooding but it is being part of a
strategic plan. There is no point in him being sacrificed if some
of the simple aspects of maintenance are not carried out because
it is significantly cheaper to carry out continual planned maintenance
to deal with the eventualities that we face than going for a knee-jerk
reaction to put in possible flood defences which might seem a
good idea at the time but if ever they are breached then we end
up with catastrophic losses. You have got to have more of an holistic
approach as to how this comes about.
2 Ev 268 Back
| 
