One of the most severe challenges facing the United Kingdom. Winter floods. A round- table bringing together researchers and practitioners. Geographers offer a holistic oversight. Interdependencies of physical and human influences. Identifying conflicts and syneUrgieKs. fDilfoferoendt a rreias okf g moveranmneant gpoelicmy. Geeongrtaphical research specialisms offer evidence. Specialisms include hydrology, fluvial geomorphology, land management. GeogPraophleirsc synt hreesiscinog amnd cmritiqeuinngd evaidtenicoe.n Imspl ementing sustainable flood risk management. Government should draw on the available evidence for adopting a more cost-effective and sustainable flood risk management approach. Invest selectively to fill key research gaps. Adapt policies given the changing nature of flooding. Differentiate between different types of flooding. Paying greater attention to ground water and surface water flooding. Greater risks from surface water and ground water flooding. Surface water flooding can happen anywhere in the country. Changes have not been recognised or incorporated into policy. Residual risk needs to be better understood and communicated. All flood defences have a designed capability. Current design standards for flood defences may not be adequate. Natural Flood Management has the potential to make a more substantial contribution. Catchment-scale modelling. Initiatives on agriculture and on flood risk management. Funding models should be explored. Compensating or paying farmers to manage the land. A portfolio of catchment-wide flood risk management measures. Include conventional flood defences, sound planning decisions, infrastructure design and regulation. Substantial economic, environmental and social co-benefits. Increased biodiversity; carbon sequestration; water quality; public health and wellbeing. Natural Flood Management (NFM) has some value. Integrated modelling and experimental studies. Upland and lowland catchments. Investment in long-term monitoring. Observe the hydrological, sediment, debris and geomorphological responses. Active support of rural communities, land owners and most crucially, farmers. Disconnect between institutions delivering agricultural policy and the delivery of flood risk management. Incentives for farmers. Effectiveness of dredging in mitigating flood risk. Undue secondary adverse effects. Sediment and geomorphological evidence. Documented and measured flow records. Use channel change maps and lake, coastal back barrier and floodplain sediment archives. Model-based estimation of flood frequency. Extreme events. Vulnerability to flooding in the river system. Channel changes mapped using remote sensing imagery. Sedimentary paleoflood records. Captured from lake, swamp and coastal cores. Documentation of flood magnitude and frequency over thousands of years. Flow data. Short-term hydrological records. Improve the access to data on flooding. Improve public understanding. Join up flood policy. Pitt Review.Give local communities a greater say in flood risk management. Can lessons be learned from approaches taken in Scotland? Partnerships between universities and local authorities. Land-use priorities at national and sub-national scales. Flood risk facing new-build homes and infrastructure. Cost-benefit analysis of extreme flood events. £700 million for flood protection announced in the March 2016 Budget. Public, media and Parliamentarians. Raise awareness of flooding. Harness local knowledge. Public engagement methodologies. Introduction

The Government has recognised flooding as one of the most severe challenges facing the United Kingdom, a threat which is projected to increase as the climate changes. Major flooding events in recent years, including the 2015-16 winter floods following the wettest December ever recorded in the UK, mean that the Government’s response to flooding is under review. It is in this context that the Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) has produced these recommendations. In May 2016, the Society convened a round-table bringing together researchers and practitioners representing the breadth of geography – spanning physical and social science – and the significant expertise on flooding which exists within the community. These recommendations, to inform the development of flood risk management policy, are the result of this round-table meeting and subsequent work. The contribution of geographical research and practice to flood risk management F l o o d • Geographical research specialisms ,

3

J u l y

offer important, in depth, evidence across 2 0 1 1

© the physical and social sciences that can

H e n r y

L be used to inform the development of a k e policy, and in particular spatially-based policy. These specialisms range from hydrology, fluvial geomorphology, land management and quaternary environmental changes to the impacts of planning policy and community responses. • Geographers offer a holistic oversight • Geographers also play a significant role of flood risk management. This is in synthesising and critiquing evidence, an essential requirement of effective communicating this to policy-makers management, given the complexity in and to the public. The Royal Geographical the number and the interdependencies Society (with the Institute of British of physical and human influences on Geographers), as the UK’s learned society flood risk and flooding. This extends to and professional body for geography, has identifying conflicts and synergies, where an important role to play in the exchange these exist, between different areas of of knowledge between the academic, government policy that may affect flood practice and policy communities. risk, directly and indirectly.

1 Policy recommendations

1. Implementing sustainable management approach in the UK, and to flood risk management invest selectively to fill key research gaps. Recommendation 1 2. New geographies of flooding Government should draw on the Recommendation 2 available evidence to inform its Review and adapt policies given policies for adopting a more cost- the changing nature of flooding: effective and sustainable flood risk management approach in the UK; 2.1 Take a broader view of the and invest selectively to fill key geographies of flooding, spatially research gaps. and temporally, to reflect the changing pattern of flooding in The tools, science (physical, economic winter and summer; and, and social) and expert knowledge that we have available are sufficient to inform 2. 2 Differentiate between different the development of evidence-based types of flooding and understand the policy by Government to address future linkages between them (in particular, flooding risks and to build resilience, paying greater attention to ground- albeit with some further focused research. water and surface water flooding). The challenge now is for Government to The nature and geography of flooding draw on this evidence to inform its policies in the UK appears to be changing, with for adopting and implementing a more greater risks from surface water and cost effective and sustainable flood risk groundwater flooding now that the main

2 flood plains have been protected by All flood defences have a designed investment over many years. Due to its capability. The flooding events of 2013/14 often very long duration, groundwater and 2015/16 have demonstrated this flooding has a significant and widespread in that flood defences were overtopped. economic impact. Surface water flooding Current design standards for flood defences can happen anywhere in the country, not may not be adequate, particularly with simply on floodplains, and is a function of respect to withstanding repeated flood/ existing drainage capacities; these are not storm events occurring over a short period designed to cope with the high magnitudes of time and the increased risks of flooding and intensities of rainfall that the UK is now posed by climate change. How best to experiencing. These changes have not communicate and mitigate the residual been recognised or incorporated into policy risk to communities should be explored. and practice or understood by the public. 4. Natural Flood Management 3. Flood defences and residual risk Recommendation 4 Recommendation 3 Natural Flood Management (NFM) Residual risk needs to be better has the potential to make a more understood and communicated. substantial contribution to flood risk management in the UK if used 3.1 Research is needed into the as part of a portfolio of measures nature and extent of the residual risk and, as an approach, is integrated that communities face where they across Government. are ‘protected’ by engineering and other schemes. 4.1 To inform NFM there is a need for more catchment-scale modelling to 3.2 People in those communities upscale from smaller NFM treatments need to be more aware of the idea of to larger scales, with carefully residual risk and their exposure to it. designed catchment experiments.

3 4. 2 The department s/ institutions The relatively limited available evidence delivering initiatives on agriculture (from small catchment monitoring and and on flood risk management modelling studies) suggests that NFM has should be expected to work more some value, at least in small catchments closely together to maximise impact (up to 100 kilometres square) and for less and to avoid conflicting outcomes. severe, high frequency flood events. A key question that remains to be answered is 4. 3 Existing funding models what scale and type of NFM can deliver should be explored as a way of measurable impacts in larger catchments compensating or paying farmers to and for more severe, high magnitude / low manage the land for the benefit of frequency flood events. To answer this, local residents and other catchment integrated modelling and experimental users downstream in the event of studies are required for representative a flood. upland and lowland catchments. This NFM has the potential to make a greater requires an investment in long-term contribution than presently to flood risk monitoring, for at least 10-years, to observe management in the UK, when used as the hydrological, sediment, debris and part of a portfolio of catchment-wide flood geomorphological responses to NFM in risk management measures. These should larger catchments. include conventional flood defences, At both policy and implementation levels sound planning decisions, infrastructure there are disconnects between different design and regulation, tailored to the sectors that hamper progress (policy level geography of the catchment. Substantial is commented on in recommendation nine economic, environmental and social of this document). In the majority of UK co-benefits will accrue through investment catchments, implementation of catchment- in NFM measures, for example: increased wide and river/ floodplain scale initiatives biodiversity; carbon sequestration; water requires the active support of rural quality; public health and wellbeing. communities, land owner s/managers and

4 most crucially, farmers. Yet there remains 6.1 The UK Government and flood a sectoral disconnect between institutions risk management authorities should delivering agricultural policy and the explore how best to use channel delivery of flood risk management. In change maps and lake, coastal back particular, the incentives for farmers to barrier and floodplain sediment deliver NFM are improving but are still poor. archives to improve our model-based estimation of flood frequency and 5. Dredging especially extreme events. Recommendation 5 Integrating remotely-sensed The evidence base for the geomorphological evidence and sediment- effectiveness of dredging based records within the flood risk in mitigating flood risk should management process has the potential to be systematically reviewed. improve, significantly, flood risk assessment The questions as to when, where and how of extreme events. For example, historical dredging might be useful in mitigating flood channels represent points of vulnerability risk without undue secondary adverse to flooding in the river system today and effects, both at the site and elsewhere, such channel changes can be mapped are under-researched and need greater using remote sensing imagery. attention. Sedimentary paleoflood records, as 6. Historical records of flooding captured from lake, swamp and coastal cores, can provide detailed documentation Recommendation 6 of flood magnitude and frequency over Better, careful use could be made thousands of years. of sediment and geomorphological evidence of former high magnitude Both approaches can aid in calibrating flood flooding events, to complement and risk and in modelling, as complementary extend documented and measured to, rather than a substitute for, recorded flow records. flow data. These approaches are the only

5 way to extend the records of flooding over 8. Adaptation to climate change timescales that include magnitudes of Recommendation 8 change not seen in short-term hydrological Climate change needs to be records. They are widely used in some fully integrated into flood risk other countries but have seen limited management alongside all other take-up by flood protection authorities in risk drivers, recognising the the UK to date. interlinkages between them. The tools and parameters governing the 8.1 Adaptation to climate change integration of these data sets need further should be built into flood risk development, together with a careful management through the assessment of the changing contexts of implementation of flexible, climate, land use and other anthropogenic ‘no regrets’ measures. factors for the paleo records. 8.2 More research is recommended 7. Access to data to address the understanding of Recommendation 7 changing flood risk as a result of Improve the access to data climate change, and how effective on flooding to the public and different flood management methods researchers. are likely to be in this context. In the spirit of the open data agenda, Adaptation to climate change must be there is an opportunity to improve public built into decisions taken now, for the understanding and the use of data by future, but questions remain regarding researchers, for both modelling and how adaptive pathways can best be built forecasting, by making data more readily into flood risk management and institutions. available and, for the public, carefully There are also questions as to whether interpreted. Much data on flooding are not current guidelines for incorporating climate open-source and are therefore inaccessible. change into the estimation of flood risk

6 need to be revised in the light of recent between different Government policy experience. To take account of climate areas. The Environment Agency takes change, flood risk management should on higher level catchment planning and incorporate flexible, ‘no regrets’ measures oversight but is largely uninvolved on that can evolve as more information about measures away from ‘Main Rivers’, on the impacts of climate change becomes ‘Ordinary Watercourses’: these can available. significantly affect flood risk and are essential in NFM. The Agency’s holistic There is a significant gap in our overview is further weakened by the understanding of how climatic variability current Government policy to give local and change affects relevant dimensions of communities a greater say in flood risk flood risk in the UK. How this varies across management. This can lead to greater catchment types and flood exposures to support for those who are the most vocal affect the spatial and temporal distribution but not necessarily in the greatest need. of risk is also uncertain. Flood risk and management are impacted 9. Roles and responsibilities by decisions taken across, and within, Recommendation 9 Whitehall departments and in the devolved Structural changes to better join up administrations. Decisions on planning and flood policy across different actors, drainage policy for new developments and integrate this better across (Department for Communities and Local Government, should be given full Government) and transport infrastructure consideration. (Department for Transport) will impact flood risk. The Department for Environment, Food Changes made to flood and water and Rural Affairs (Defra) review of food and management resulting from the Pitt Review farming has been conducted with little have not been entirely successful in reference to how land use practices affect clarifying flood risk management roles and flood potential. How can the cross-sectoral responsibilities, or in addressing conflicts

7 nature of flooding be better reflected across 10.2 A new methodology should be Government? Can lessons be learned from developed, and applied throughout approaches taken in Scotland? England and Wales, to ensure systematic follow-up on the Local authorities require greater support compliance of new developments and resources to fulfil their flood risk with planning conditions in relation management responsibilities. Staff with to flood risk. the technical experience to take a holistic view of different land use / management The effectiveness of the current spatial / planning practices within a catchment planning system for controlling built may be lacking or else have too heavy development on flood plains is a workload. Partnerships between questionable: there would be significant universities and local authorities could advantages to sub-national or national prove beneficial. level oversight. The compliance of new developments with planning conditions 10. Scale and spatial planning is not routinely assessed in England, in Recommendation 10 contrast to Scotland. Research should be Address inadequacies in the undertaken to examine such compliance strategic and implementation as these inadequacies can impede aspects of the current planning an understanding and mitigation of the system. flood risk facing new-build homes and infrastructure. This could usefully be 10.1 The UK should move to a complemented by in-depth case-studies more strategic assessment of of land use development within flood risk land use priorities at national and areas over the past 30-50 years. sub-national scales to influence the development of property and infrastructure.

8 11. Financial aspects of flood assumptions behind the additional £700 risk management million for flood protection announced in the March 2016 Budget. Recommendation 11 An independent cost-benefit analysis 12. Awareness and understanding of extreme flood events is needed among public, media and in order to evaluate how effective Parliamentarians investments have been. Without this, Recommendation 12 along with clear, evidence-based A systematic programme to raise aims and objectives for flood risk awareness of flooding and flood management, it is not possible to risk management is needed for UK judge whether the Government’s Parliamentarians, the media and financial commitments to future the public, together with the ability flood defence spending match the to harness local knowledge. levels of protection required. 12.1 More could be made of public Questions remain regarding whether engagement methodologies and there is a significant gap between the community modelling tools that Government’s commitment to future are being developed by human flood defence spending and the required geographers. levels of protection. A further question is whether the Government is spending 12.2 A national programme of its funding appropriately to meet the public education should be funded, requirements of the National Flood and delivered independently Resilience Review, the 25-year plan of Government, by relevant for the Natural Environment and the professional organisations. Cumbrian Floods Partnership. In addition, The promotion of flood risk awareness is further clarity is required regarding the challenging but ways must be found to

9 facilitate greater public understanding, 13.1 This includes better fundamental to enhancing resilience. communication of the short-term Individuals and businesses need to be nature of subsidies offered through provided with information about flood Flood Re. This is particularly mitigation options that they can enact important for vulnerable themselves. Appropriate incentives and communities, improving their support to take action must be put in place, understanding of how they might such as reduced insurance premiums. act to reduce their risk. Local knowledge can play a valuable Geographical research highlights the and important role in improving flood propensity to ‘return to normal’ approaches risk modelling in particular catchments. following significant flood events, rather Projects such as ‘Slowing the Flow’ in than encouraging householders and Pickering demonstrate the importance others involved to build resilience for the of community engagement with flood future. Insurers have an important role to risk management but scalable, less play in incentivising companies – hired resource-intensive ways of rolling out by them to install good quality flood such approaches should be found. mitigation measures in properties post- flood – to build resilience. The industry 13. Resilience and recovery could usefully develop accreditation Recommendation 13 for such installations to drive up skills, Much more could be done with the expertise and standards . money spent during recovery and The Government’s Grant-in-Aid model response to ensure that flooding of spending on flood risk management events become catalysts for change is contradicted by approaches that step and an opportunity to build resilience, in, post flood event in certain areas, rather than return to the status quo. with a ‘blank cheque’. This sends mixed messages to individuals, communities,

10 businesses and local flood risk Flooding research is a national management authorities regarding and an international priority. Greater their own responsibilities to invest in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary developing resilience. research, national co-ordination of it and its applications, is required, including Perverse incentives must not undermine social sciences and humanities. In this individuals’ willingness to improve the way, Britain will: build on existing skills resilience of their property. People must and knowledge; use limited resources be informed clearly that Flood Re, that efficiently; and seek to become a world subsidises those at risk of flooding, is leader in understanding and managing short-term and that they must ultimately flooding and in promoting resilient take responsibility for building their own communities and landscapes. resilience. There needs to be a stronger appreciation and more work done to A ‘Flooding and Environment Centre’ ensure that people can genuinely live should be established in the UK, with a with floods, with institutions in place to physical base and a distributed network enable a return to a functioning state as of researchers and practitioners across quickly as possible when flooding occurs. universities, the public and private sectors. This would integrate the expertise and 14. Co-ordination and funding perspectives from the natural sciences, for future research social sciences and humanities, and Recommendation 14 interface and broker effective relationships Establish a UK-wide, interdisciplinary with and between Government, Agencies, flood research and co-ordination UK Research and Innovation, learned centre that has the support and societies and professional bodies, involvement of the research, policy consultancies and industrial partners. and business communities.

11 Acknowledgements and further information

These recommendations are the result of a round table Further reading meeting held at the RGS-IBG in May 2016, and subsequent discussions, bringing together a working group of expert A list of references and further reading material can be geographers from research, policy and practice, along with found on the Society’s website W www.rgs.org/policy contributors from cognate disciplines. Participants in the round table were: Professor Nigel Arnell (University of Reading) • Professor Phil Ashworth (University of Brighton) • Dr Catherine Butler (University of Exeter) • Professor Sir Ron Cooke (University of York) • Professor Tom Coulthard (University of Hull) • Professor David Demeritt (King’s College London) • Matt Foote (Argo Global) • Nick Haigh (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) • Dr Tim Harries (Kingston University) • Ian Heijne (Atkins) • James Heptonstall (Peter Brett Associates) • Daniel Johns (Adaptation Sub-Committee, Committee on Climate Change) • Gary Kass (Natural England) • Professor Mark Macklin (University of Lincoln) • Professor Tim O’Riordan (University of East Anglia) • Professor Dennis Parker (Middlesex University) • Professor Edmund Penning-Rowsell (Middlesex University) • Dr John Phillips (Chartered Geographer) • Dr Sally Priest (Middlesex University) • Professor Dame Judith Rees (London School of Economics and RGS-IBG; Chair) • Professor David Sear (University of Southampton) • Dr Swenja Surminski (London School of Economics) • Professor Colin Thorne (University of Nottingham) • Dr Christophe Viavattene (Middlesex University) Professor Alan Werritty (University of Dundee) • Professor Sarah Whatmore (University of Oxford).

Page 1 image

Image used under the Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license. Coarse half tone applied W www.flickr.com/photos/howardlake/5939812628 Published November 2016 by the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG)

12 About the Society

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is the learned society and professional body for geography. Formed in 1830, our Royal Charter of 1859 is for ‘the advancement of geographical science’. Today, we deliver this objective through developing, supporting and promoting geographical research, expeditions and fieldwork, education, public engagement, and by providing geography input to policy. In doing so we aim to safeguard, develop and promote geography; to foster an understanding and informed enjoyment of our world for audiences ranging from professional to public; and to sustain standards, support students and accredit practitioners of geography. As a charity our work exists for public benefit, reaches over three million people annually, and is supported by a thriving Fellowship and membership. If you would like to learn more about our work on policy or would like to get involved, contact E [email protected] W www.rgs.org/policy How to find us

Entrance is on Exhibitio n Road The Society is the learned society and professional body for geography. We support and promote Nearest Tube station South Kensington geographical research, education, expeditions, fieldwork and public understanding as well as Royal Geographical Society with IBG advising on policy issues. 1 Kensington Gore London SW7 2AR

T +44 (0)20 7591 3000 F +44 (0)20 7591 3001 E info @rgs.org W ww w.rgs.org