courtesy MapAction
Defence of the Realm
Tony Boobier, Strategic Industry Manager for Insurance at Pitney Bowes MapInfo outlines the findings of the interim flood report by Sir Michael Pitt and presents the case for location-based logic
Whichever side you take on the topic of climate change, be it man-made or simply natural, there is little argument that things are changing, and that the implications for the infrastructure of the UK are likely to be significant.
Reports by the Association of British Insurers and others paint a picture of a country where the:
• Number of cold days where average temp is below freezing will decrease
• Summer rainfall will decrease in the South but increase in the North
• Severe wind storms will increase
• Winter rainfall will increase
• Frequency of very severe storms will increase (such as 1987 and 1990)
• Annual average temperature will increase by 0.5degrees and 1.3degrees centigrade by 2020
• Number of warm days where temp is greater than 20 degrees will increase
• Increase in coastal flooding, particularly in areas where there is greater degree of coastal erosion
• More inland flooding. In the South, increased temperatures combined with drier summers will lead to drier soil which is less able to absorb predicted increase in heavy rainfall.
What is the likely impact of these changes?
· Flooding is more likely to occur both inland and on the coast, as the change in the climate makes the environment more susceptable to extreme events
· Forecasts indicate more severe storm and flood events
· Severe weather events to become a way of life
· Subsidence claims will increase in the South of the Country
Of course, freak weather is not a stranger to our shores. Historians would point to the storm of 1703 which according to records killed 15,000. In more recent memory is the 1953 East Coast flood and the other 'Great Storm' of 1987. However, the three months from May to July are acknowledged as being the wettest since records began and the events that followed have been linked to the deaths of 13 people. They also resulted in damage to approximately 48,000 homes and 7,000 businesses.
Power and water supplies were lost, railway lines, eight motorways and many other roads were closed and large parts of five counties and four cities were brought to a standstill. From an emergency response standpoint, this constituted a new level of challenge. The flooding triggered a series of emergencies which stretched local resources.
It was in the light of these changes that Sir Michael Pitt was invited to chair a review and examine both how to reduce flood risk and impact, and the response of the emergency services. His interim report of December 2007 made 15 key recommendations and 72 interim conclusions, and invited responses by March 2008 with a view to the final report being published in the autumn.
The key 15 recommendations, in no order of priority are:
1. Monitoring of groundwater levels to predict and mitigate further serious flooding
2. Identify areas at highest risk from surface water flooding where known
3. Develop and implement a clear policy on the use of defences.
4. Urgent review of current local arrangements for water rescue
5. Urgent review of designated rest centres or alternatives
6. Cabinet Office should urgently consider the costs, benefits and feasibility of stockpiles
7. Guidance clarifying the role and accountabilities of organisations involved
8. Identification of vulnerable people and on planning to support them
9. Urgently develop and share a national flood emergency framework.
10. Better communication of detailed assessment of critical infrastructure
11. EA and telecommunications companies to develop telephone flood warning schemes
12. Urgently develop plans to enhance flood warnings through 'door-knocking'
13. Urgently make arrangements to coordinate local media representatives
14. Members of the public to make up a flood kit
15. Members of the public to increase their personal state of readiness and resilience to floods.
Such recommendations are inevitably open to debate and discussion, especially where there are potential issues of prioritisation and funding to contend with. It is difficult to complain about the breadth of the proposals but has Pitt asked for too much? An engineer by profession, Pitt clearly recognises the complex and interactive nature of his proposals in much the same way that major construction programmes usually comprise a combination of linked projects.
One of the key areas of discussion is likely to be that of cost of implementation, against the degree of damage avoided through additional flood defences. At face value, this seems simply to be a matter of understanding the impact of the 'where' element – the location of potential flooding, which properties will be affected, and the likely cost of the damage. However, we should not underestimate the challenges in accurately modelling the risk. Technology has a key role in aggregating data in 'real time' and to communicate warnings and recommendations at an individual property-specific level. This isn't rocket science; to coin a phrase: we have the technology.
The events of 2007 gave us a sharp reminder that flash flooding is influenced as much by inadequate drains as by location above river level. Are we now paying the price for years of urban development without improving the drainage infrastructure beneath our feet? Perhaps serious flooding in London will not occur because of a surge of water up the Thames, but rather as a result of sustained and intense rainfall over the roofs of the city and the inadequacy of Victorian drains to cope?
Addressing the matter of cost, there is also a tendency to focus on physical damage. However, the consequences of getting it wrong are much wider in terms of the emotional price we pay. For example, research following the Carlisle flooding in 2005 showed us that:
· 65 % of people had difficulties following the floods and 37 % had sought help from their GP
· 26% received medication but 25% said this was not sufficient. 50 % had trouble sleeping, 49% felt low, 43% felt irritable
· 67% said they had much higher stress levels than before the flood - of these 72% had not sought help.
· The biggest area of stress impact was 45% the home, 29% relationships, 25% work
· 41% people coped by turning to friends, followed by 29% family, 18% alcohol, 15% smoking
· 45% said that being back home had not reduced their stress levels because of concern of further flooding.
On the whole organisations seem to have responded to Pitt's interim proposals with a mixture of tacit support and constructive comment. There appears to be an overall appreciation that the events of 2007 are not likely to be a 'one-off' but rather that there need be a coherent and integrated strategy to enable future events to be better managed at all levels.
One recommendation not contained within the Interim Report could perhaps be the most important one of all. Does the UK need someone to take overall control, and perhaps become the focal point that all organisations can look for guidance and direction. Is the UK at last ready for a 'Flood Czar' or equivalent? The Nation looks forward with interest to Pitt's final report later in the year.
Tony Boobier, Strategic Industry Manager for Insurance at Pitney Bowes MapInfo
