Future Outlook and Recommendations
Figure 13: Uckfield, October 2000. Courtesy of Alan Thompson, Symonds Group Limited



The DEFRA report discussed earlier suggested two alternatives for flood defence spending. Either increase spending now by up to 85%, or concentrate spending on those areas where it will provide most benefit and give up defending other areas. The second option implies some sort of "managed retreat", or what the government would prefer to call "managed realignment".

The EA have also considered future options to reduce flood risk, and will focus on increased public awareness and preparedness, and flood defence systems which work with nature instead of against it.

In 2003, they published a new strategy document which emphasised the need to manage flood risk in all its aspects, not just build defences. During 2003/2004,

Defra has led Government work towards revising this strategy to produce a new strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England . Called "Making Space for Water" the aim is to:

•  Provide strategic direction for the next ten to twenty years, with commitments to review progress regularly and to set issues in the context of the longer term.

•  Look wider than flooding from rivers and the sea to consider all aspects of flood and coastal erosion risk management, taking a holistic approach.

•  Set flood and coastal erosion risk management firmly in the context of Defra's aim of sustainable development.

•  Look at a broad range of drivers for change including climate change and planning and development pressures.

The Government launched a public consultation exercise on 29 July 2004 in order to seek views on the proposals from as many different stakeholders as possible.

The full consultation document is available to download from http:/ /www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/waterspace/index.htm . Paper copies are available from Defra Publications (08459 556000; defra@iforcegroup.com ) by quoting reference PB 9792. Further information, including a series of background documents, are available from the strategy web pages via http://www.de fra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy.htm .

In June 2002, the government established a Foresight project in Flood and Coastal Defences. The project aims to produce a long-term (2030-2100) holistic vision for future risk of pluvial, fluvial and coastal flooding in the UK , and to consider the options for responding to that risk. The results will feed into government policy, and anyone is welcome to contribute ideas through the web site. (for details see Appendix 2 and www.foresight.gov.uk ).

The first group of reports were published on the Foresight website in April 2004, and present a considerable body of data and detailed scenarios which will assist insurers in long term planning. (The author was closely involved with the preparation of some of them.)

In July 2004, the EU produced a "communication" on flood which contains much useful information and very sensible proposals which are well worth reading carefully. It can be downloaded from:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/pdf/com_2004_472_en.pdf

In August 2004, the European Environment Agency published a valuable report on climate change impacts in Europe.

Meanwhile, in Scotland two important planning documents were published in 2004. A policy document, SPP7, was published to replace previous guidelines NPPG 7. This has a number of features including: a re-emphasis on the need for all local authorities to establish Flood Liaison and Advice Groups (FLAGs) formerly called Flood Liaison and Advice Groups, and the inclusion of a "risk framework" consistent with the insurance template. It was followed up by a new "Planning Advice Note" which gives details to help implement the Policy in SPP 7.

An interesting development in France , during 2004, was the introduction of new zoned regional maps, Plan de Prévention des Risques, (PPR) which show areas of flood hazard. Unlike the old system, PPRs are fixed by law by central government and will be difficult to change in the light of new information or local knowledge. There is a lack of local participation in drawing up these maps, which is creating resentment. The risk maps do not take flood defences into account, even if such defences increase the downstream hazard. The zoning maps are currently being rolled out to the 30,000 communes and about 5,000 should have them by 2005. The rigid, centrally controlled approach in France contrasts sharply with the almost laisser faire approach in England, where 56% of local authorities now have ignored Environment Agency advice, according to research by Manchester University.

Two major new flood reports were published in October 2002. They were commissioned by a consortium of insurance companies called "TSUNAMI". One report is by the University of Southampton and the author. It examines current insurance strategies and concerns based on a series of in depth, confidential interviews with senior underwriting managers of all the major insurance companies, as well as with representatives of the main brokers, loss adjusters, and other stakeholders.

The other report, by the Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre, outlines a whole range of ideas for the future strategies of insurance companies and government. The author was heavily involved with both of these reports, on behalf of the ABI. Hopefully the insurance industry and government will study and reflect on the content of these very important reports.

While the author believes that the solutions adopted in Scotland are setting an excellent example for England and Wales to follow, the problems in the South East of England are already so great that it may be too late for such relatively mild measures to be successful. Some Lloyd's syndicates are already offering household insurance subject to flood risks exclusion, but from the author's discussions with the market, it seems that fortunately it is reluctant to go down this road as it would inevitably lead to adverse selection. In any case, experience in Australia and Canada shows that defining "flood" adequately is extremely difficult, and leads to numerous disputes and complaints. Increasing premiums to the full economic rate required is another solution, but this will reduce insurance penetration, especially in social housing and lead to social injustice. Insurance premium levels have traditionally been subsidised by returns on investments made by insurers in the stock market, but as the value of these investment returns falls, insurers can no longer afford to carry underwriting losses.

The following are some of the author's ideas on more radical long-term solutions to flood risks (see also the author's book on climate change). They are listed according to the three sides of the risk triangle, hazard, vulnerability, and exposure.

Reducing any one side of the triangle reduces risk, and the most effective way to reduce risk is to look for "quick wins" on each of the three sides of the triangle in turn.

«back to top«