HOT TOPICS

FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH

Sir Michael Pitt* introduces the key findings of his recently published Review of the UK’s response to the summer floods of 2007.

Last summer was the wettest summer since records began, with extensive flooding across large parts of England.  Around 55,000 properties were flooded and 13 people died.  The Government commissioned a review into the floods that was to be both thorough and independent; a fair assessment of what happened and what could be done differently.  The final report into last summer's floods was published on 25 June. It has 92 recommendations.

In carrying out the Review, one principle was paramount - we started with the needs of those individuals and communities that had suffered flooding or were at risk. Both the interim and final reports were drafted with the intention that they should be readily accessible to all.  In bringing forward recommendations, we were clear that they must make a real difference on the ground, improving the quality of people's lives.

Some key issues arose quickly in assessing the impacts of the floods.  While we could not attribute these specific floods to climate change, the evidence suggests that these sorts of extreme events are more likely to occur as a result of our changing climate.  We commissioned a qualitative update of foresight future flooding.  This suggests that the scale of the problem is likely to get worse. The analysis indicates that climate change has the potential to cause even more extreme scenarios than were considered  possible previously, both in terms of potential increases in rainfall volume and intensity and sea level rise.  This means that adaptation is essential and will need strong Government leadership.

We also need to be much clearer about who does what.  A high proportion of the flooding of last summer was surface water flooding, but no organisation was responsible for its oversight and management, leading to problems in places such as Hull.  There is also no warning for this type of flooding and organisations were not prepared well.  The Review is calling for greater oversight at both the national and local level and the development of tools to model, forecast and map this type of flooding. 

The Environment Agency should have national oversight of all flood risk and develop the framework under which these risks can be understood and managed.  An important element of this will be to develop a long-term investment strategy. Local authorities should take on the role of managing local flood risk.  In order to do so they will need to undergo a technical renaissance - building up their technical skills - and they will need the support of all those involved, such as the local water companies, who hold information on the sewerage systems.

The floods also had a dramatic impact on electricity substations, water and sewerage treatment works, and the road and rail network. The consequence of loss of essential services provided by these sectors extended well beyond the areas that were flooded.

The Government should respond by taking action to enable infrastructure operators and local responders to mitigate these risks, especially for 'Single Points of Failure'. There is a requirement for a more systematic approach to understanding the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and to improving resilience. We propose that Government creates a national framework to help reduce the risks to the delivery of essential services resulting from natural hazards. The framework should aim to:

• Reduce risk to the most important infrastructure assets resulting from natural hazards through a careful assessment of vulnerability and decisive action based on new centrally-defined standards
• Provide appropriate economic incentives to infrastructure operators to increase the resilience of infrastructure
• Enhance the capacity to act quickly when faced with unexpected events through the introduction of mandatory business continuity planning
• Ensure an effective emergency response at the local level through improved information sharing and engagement before, during and after emergencies

The UK has an excellent record of dam and reservoir safety. Nevertheless, some still pose significant risks to people and property. The events which occurred at Ulley Reservoir, Rotherham, highlight the potential risks facing communities living in dam inundation areas. The absence of prior information with which to prepare contingency plans meant emergency responders had to improvise by drawing flood maps and making evacuation plans on the spot.

The lesson of Ulley is that we must also be prepared for failure. At present, security concerns mean that the UK has one of the world's most secretive regimes in relation to dam inundation. But this has meant that responders cannot be as ready as they should be, whether the breach occurs because of a malicious attack or natural failure. The Review considers it essential that emergency responders should have the information they need to undertake effective planning, and to engage fully with downstream communities. This would bring the UK into line with other parts of the world, where evidence suggests that involving the community in local planning increases awareness and lessens the risk of fatalities and damage. This should include identification for the public of evacuation routes and procedures where destruction of buildings and loss of life could occur.

*Sir Michael Pitt is Chair of the South West Strategic Health Authority.  He was appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to chair an independent review into the 2007 floods.

The final Pitt Review report can be found at www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/thepittreview.aspx.  Accompanying research and key pieces of evidence can also be found there.