Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Natural England (FL 102a)
Thank you for the opportunity to give oral evidence
to your Committee on 30 January. There are a number of key issues
which we were not able to explore fully in the time available.
OUR ANALYSIS
1. Flooding is not a new phenomenon. It
happens and always has, but climate change is making extreme flooding
events more frequent and more damaging.
2. Decades of land drainage and poor land
management practices have exacerbated both the incidence and impact
of flood events by increasing the flow rate of water from agricultural
land. There are important links between continuing poor land management
practices, resource protection and flood risk, which call for
more integrated approaches at a catchment scale.
3. Drainage of upland blanket bog, facilitated
by Government grants between the 1950s and 1980s, has damaged
designated conservation sites, degraded the landscape and increased
the cost of raw water treatment. It is estimated that there are
over 30,000km of grips above the 200m contour in England and that
a programme of grip-blocking could reduce flood peaks by up to
15% at a cost in the range £30-£90 million.
4. There have been corresponding losses
in lowland wet grassland. Approximately 20,00km2 of wet grassland
were drained between 1940 and 1980 which has led to declines in
numbers of breeding waders: 61% for snipe, 40% for curlew, 38%
for lapwing and 20% for redshank between 1982 and 2002 (Source:
Breeding Wader Survey, BTO & RSPB).
5. A research project (FD 2114) undertaken
by the Environment Agency (EA) and Defra with involvement from
Natural England concluded that changes to land management practices
(eg grazing, cultivation, underdrainage, woodland cover) can significantly
reduce run-off at a local, sub-catchment scale, but the extent
to which they could mitigate flooding in larger catchment situation
has not been demonstrated.
6. Taking forward a new Government Strategy
for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England is
the Government's response in 2005 to the consultation exercise
on Making space for water. It announced the intention to pursue
a more strategic approach, and move to a wider portfolio of responses
to flood risk. These could include greater use of rural land-use
solutions, such as creation of wetlands and washlands,[3]
coastal realignment, river corridor widening and river restoration.
7. Defra announced a new policy on 1 April
2004 on the Maintenance of uneconomic sea defences with
a rationale for abandoning those sea walls which are unsustainable.
This would be done by the EA through its Shoreline Management
Plans. The assessment has since been extended by the EA to inland
flood defences. The EA is also completing a programme of Catchment
Flood Management Plans (with input from Natural England), which
are meant to take a holistic view of flood risk and solutions
within major catchments. The EA website states "the best
way to reduce the risk of flood is to focus on ways that work
with nature, not against it, such as constructing flood barriers".
8. The interim report of the Pitt Review
expressed unequivocal support for integrated solutions, working
with natural processes "through better land-use planning
and management—for example creating washlands and wetlands—can
also reduce the need for extensive, costly hard flood defences,
offering a more sustained, long term solution to flooding problems".
9. Despite the benefits outlined in Making
space for water and the Pitt Review, integrated schemes at a catchment,
estuary or coastal cell level remain a rarity for reasons outlined
in our written and oral evidence to the Committee.
OUR PROPOSED
APPROACH
1. Natural England supports the emphasis
in Making space for water and the Pitt Review on natural processes
and ecosystem function. We call for an holistic, integrated, whole
system approach to land and water management to be adopted at
catchment scale, whilst we acknowledge that the evidence of their
ability to deliver significant flood risk mitigation in urban
situations is not yet certain.
2. Flood risk management needs to be addressed
as part of a package of levers to deliver the optimum mix of public
benefits for people now and in the future. The mix of potential
public benefits delivered (eg water quality/source protection,
wetland restoration, benefits for particular species such as breeding
waders, carbon sequestration and public enjoyment) will vary between
different catchments and sub-catchments. Depending on location,
a different mix of interventions will be needed to deliver the
optimum mix of public benefits which should be funded from different
"pots" accordingly—for example, flood risk management
funds could be used to create a managed washland, whilst HLS funding
could enhance its potential for breeding waders by paying farmers
to retain water levels within 10-15cm of the soil surface until
the end of July.
3. Land managers should be supported with
public funds for providing public benefits, but should not be
compensated for known business risk (eg arable cultivation in
flood plains) or to stop polluting or damaging the natural environment.
Therefore, we believe the England Catchment Sensitive Farming
Delivery Initiative should be extended through a mix of advice
and transitional support for a defined period only, followed by
a regulatory approach which we believe can be delivered through
EA's powers to designate Water Protection Zones.
4. We advocate early action to implement
a strategic programme of grip-blocking in the uplands and more
rapid progress towards managed realignment in both coastal and
fluvial environments, including the creation of managed washlands
and wetlands in appropriate locations.
5. In adopting such an approach, we need
to recognise the legitimate needs of communities already existing
in flood plains and support the removal of critical assets (eg
electricity supply substations and water treatment works).
6. The Habitats Directive already provides
a mechanism for advancing this case, but Natural England and its
partners will need to be bolder in both making the case and seeking
innovative solutions which could lead us to seek amendments to
habitats regulations in the forthcoming review.
7. The land use planning system needs to
ensure that new development is appropriately located in relation
to flood plains and eroding coasts; and provide the space for
natural processes to function and managed realignment to be a
realistic opportunity.
I hope this is helpful and look forward to reading
the Committee's report of this inquiry.
Natural England
February 2008
3 Please see English Nature research report number
598 Integrated washland management for flood defence and biodiversity
which provides a more detailed analysis of the potential benefits
of managed washlands. http://www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/publication/pdf/598.pdf Back
| 
