In danger of re-inventing the wheel?

I recently reviewed a paper that presented some very basic information as a presentation of new ideas for climate change adaptation. I was really rather critical, but as two other reviewers were apparently happy with it I chose not to make a fuss and let the paper go forward. It has since been accepted.


This episode got me wondering whether there was a real danger that the work of coastal managers and engineers over the past 25 years is in danger of being re-presented by another body as radical new thoughts? If so, it seems to me that there is a risk that it will precipitate a new round of research by a different group of researchers, re-working basic science that has been the foundation for 25+ years of strategic coastal management. That worries me, as there is little enough research money in the pot at the moment anyway, and any available money needs to focus on the big questions for the future.


Thoughts that immediately come to mind include:

• How to improve public understanding of what will happen with rising sea levels and its implications for society.
  There are two contexts: undeveloped societies where huge money has not been invested in coastal infrastructure; and developed societies who have come to think of the coast as a definable point that can be defended. The question is, how to get a consensus amongst politicians that extends beyond party-political tribalism and involves common messages even when a short-term opportunity to get one over on the opposition emerges.
  

• How to make socially acceptable the really big responses that are necessary?
  We know that there are huge costs associated with maintaining existing lines of defence, and that there has been little abatement of developing infrastructure on the coast. That is storing up trouble as foreshores steepen and the costs of defence increase. At the moment there is huge resistance to any form of realignment and it has become a dirty word in many places, regarded as a nature conservation measure rather than an essential socio-economic measure.
  

• How to place a value of sediment supplies?
  Coastal erosion is still seen as a bad thing and yet is is one of the few remaining resources for sediment needed to maintain beaches and estuaries. The wave attenuation values of saltmarshes, mudflats and sandy beaches is well-established but it barely figures in the psyche of politicians, so there is a need to start to put numbers against sections of the coast, based on the relative costs of not defending the coast and using sediment to defend other places, against the costs of defending eroding coasts and the long-term costs of then either losing or defending coastlines that rely on this sediment.

• Analsysis of critical infrastucture under threat – not just now, but in 50 or 100 years time. If such infrastucture has to be moved, we need to be planning for this, safeguarding critical corridors and making sure it is possible to start to move when it needs to happen. This sort of work is very long-term and well beyond the five year life span of a Government.
  Sea level rise is such a big issue, there is a need for common ground to be established between the major political parties for a long-term strategy. What I find terribly dispiriting in this respect is the way in which the current Government has largely torn up 20+ years of strategic planning in favour, more or less, of a free-for-all if communities can find the money to take action. That inevitably means the strong will get their way and smaller, less vocal or powerful communities will be put at risk.
  

None of this is rocket science! Indeed it is not much more than plain common sense. But it is at risk if the focus of attention goes onto the develop of 'new' ideas that take the debate back 20 years. It also follows that the basics of sound coastal management have been established:

• Predictions based on sound geomorphological principles.
• Safeguarding existing sediment sources and sinks.
• Minimising interruption of sediment pathways and release of new sediment.
• Creating new sediment sinks to stop transport offshore.
• Strategic planning according to best knowledge of sediment transport.
• Community engagement throughout the process.
  

Surely it is a time for forward movement to secure action, rather than commissioning new research to answer the questions that have already been answered?

The beach at Dawlish  before the damage to the railway line in the winter of 2013/14. Loss of sediment and beach steepening is the fate awaiting many highly developed coasts, with all the associated costs.

What are the ecological implications of a vote for UKIP ?

The implications of the performance of UKIP in the European elections has the potential to change politics in the UK. It shows what substantial shift in public opinion has happened but, perhaps, it also shows that the majority of voters do not favour the UKIP message? Nonetheless, it is highly plausible that there will be a change in the political landscape and that euro-scepticism will prevail in some of the mainstream parties.

That scepticism could well extend to the debate over climate change and the measures necessary to improve resilience to environmental change. Indeed, we have seen some of this already with Conservative policy clearly shifting away from land-based renewable energy that might actually make a difference. Labour policy too, tends to overlook the fact that the costs of energy are high because previous administrations have felt it essential to increase tariffs to support greater energy efficiency. So, neither of the two main parties really offer much hope of an increase in effort to reduce carbon emissions. The UKIP success almost certainly reinforces the pressure on these parties to shift towards the 'buy now, pay later' approach to politics. But, we cannot have our cake and eat it – failure to change consumption patterns now will be expressed in the world's climate in years to come; when the next generation picks up the tab for our greed!

Perhaps there is a more immediate problem to consider? Should UKIP's objective of leaving the European Union be achieved, there could be far more profound implications for the natural environment. At the moment central funding for maintaining and enhancing the natural environment depends to a very large extent upon EU agricultural subsidies. There can be no guarantee that a post-EU government would direct so much money into positive agri-environment schemes. That would be a big cost-saving and, as we have seen in the past four years, it is environmental programmes that have taken the highest pro-rata hits to re-balance the economy. Loss of this budget would have a huge impact and could only mean one thing: a further diminution of Britain's wildlife.

Not only would there be a possible loss of financial support for wildlife, but there might well be revocation of the Habitats Directive. Indeed, I think one can consider that an inevitable result; and, as we have seen on several occasions in the past four years, decision-making will almost certainly favour development at the cost of wildlife conservation.

For me, the success of UKIP last night is extremely worrying. I don't subscribe to the view that they are necessarily xenophobic. I think the vote for UKIP illustrates how little human beings have evolved over millennia. We are still a highly tribal animal; and, when the lands or prospects of a tribe are threatened they respond. In the past that response has been war. Today, we must hope that war is not the result, but internal tensions are being expressed by the rising emphasis of rhetoric about immigration and being ruled from a body to which people feel no affinity. It is therefore of paramount importance that the political elite start to wake up to the causes of the popularity of UKIP and consider how to address the concerns of those 'tribes' who are most seriously affected by EU law and policy.

Events in Austria, Denmark France and Greece show how there is rising disaffection elsewhere, and some of that disaffection is very worrying. The spectre of the re-emergence of the Far Right should be a key political consideration for the Eurocrats. Hopefully it will make Europe more responsive to the need to adjust the integration programme back to a level that recognises national sovereignty and 'tribal' boundaries. As it stands, I think it is heading towards the point where the great social experiment disintegrates because the political classes have imposed social policy that fails to recognise that mankind has a very thin veneer of civilisation and a hard-wired tribal mindset.

The political classes are, in effect, the tribal 'elders'. At this point they must start to use wisdom and connection to the people who have sent the powerful message a vote for UKIP has sent. It is not a matter of yet more weasel words and the rhetoric of 'getting their message over'. People have heard the message and have given their response, so it is time for new messages – a policy refresh that identifies honestly what is deliverable and what is the strategic objective over a series of administrations; heaven forbid, even perhaps some common agreement between parties on the key objectives for the governance of the country!

With this in mind, I think there is a need for the mainstream parties to set out their vision for governance should there be a referendum and the country votes to leave the European Union. From an environmental perspective, clearly there could be several un-wanted side effects.

A changing urban landscape

Whilst preparing a short article on spring hoverflies for the UK Hoverflies Facebook group it struck me just how much spring has changed in London over the past 40 years. That thought process took me on to other changes in that urban environment that are equally striking.

I grew up in Mitcham (south London) and was extreley fortunate to have Mitcham Common on my doorstep. From a very early age My friends and I built camps (on the ground and up the bigger trees), searched for caterpillars and messed about in the pond. At the time, there were vast acres of open grassland. I now realise this grassland was actually pretty important; it was a last vestige of the grass heaths that once populated many of the Thames terrace gravels that made up the commons of south London. So, although I lived in what might be assumed to be an urban environment, it was in effect quite rural and I was introduced to many interesting facets of natural history.

What I remember best is the ease with which I found the caterpillars of many moths – lots of lime, poplar and elephant hawk moths, and even the occasional puss-moth. The other abiding memory is the sound of a singing skylark over Mill Hill, the kestrels nesting in an old crows nest and the stone chats singing from the top of gorse bushes. Reed buntings bred there too, as did plenty of linnets and goldfinches. During the winter we would occasionally be blessed with the wonderful sight of a short-eared owl hunting over rough grassland, and I remember great excitement when a long-eared owl was discovered (I failed to see this).

Those days are long-past. The skylarks, stone chats and reed buntings are simply ancient records in reports on the ecology of the common. Occasionally, a kestrel hunts on the common, but I cannot recall the last time I saw one. I suspect a list of the losses would actually be considerably longer, as I have made no real attempt to log birds or to make a special effort to look for the unusual visitors such as willow or marsh tits.

The most striking aspect of change is how the traditional birds of the British countryside have disappeared and have been replaced by an assortment of opportunists and recent colonisers. Forty years ago, magpies were pretty scarce and it was a point of interest to find a nest; today I've seen as many as a dozen on the roofs of houses and trees around my mother's house. I well-remember first encountering ring-necked parakeets at Hersham whilst fishing a favoured stretch of the River Mole. That was a huge surprise. Today, there is a very large flock of a couple of thousand parakeets that roost on the common! They have replaced the millions of starlings that once streamed out of London and roosted on the common, but use very different trees. The starlings favoured the hawthorns in dense woodland whereas the parakeets like the tall poplars.

Others in the ascendancy include Canada geese, which now breed in considerable numbers on the pond; much to the detriment of the native mallard that struggle to bring up a spring brood. I think the geese are a definite problem from an ecological perspective. They range quite considerable distances from the pond, grazing the adjacent grassland to a few millimetres high and covering it with droppings. The phorbs in the grassland seem to me to have substantially declined within a radius of 50 metres of the pond – so several hectares of grassland has been affected.

Meanwhile, the fantastic acid grasslands are invaded by scrub and especially a very vigorous bramble that I think can only be a hybrid of a vigorous cultivar. Turkey oak is also springing up all over the place. It is quite a revellation because at one time there was just a single Turkey oak on the common, and it was felled a long while ago – well before the recent seedlings could have been propagated. So, where do the seed sources come from? It suggests that birds (presumably jays) must fly considerable distances before hiding their stash of winter supplies. Interestingly, the grasslands are also invaded by honeysuckle. To my untrained eye it looks like the native Lonicera periclymenium but it has escaped the woodland and is now invading vast patches of grassland.I don't recall seeing this problem anywhere else but perhaps other observers know of similar problems.

This is almost something out of a horror movie as the march of the aliens threatens to overwhelm a fantastic oasis of nature. The other amazing invader is spindle – normally a species associated with Chalk downland, but in recent years clumps have been springing up in the acid grasslands. This too is a potentially troubling addition to the army of invaders. On a more positive note, the majority of the Japanese knotweed has been eradicated!

I've studied the ecology of the common for most of my life and have published several accounts of its invertebrate fauna. It was, and still is (in places) a very special place that I think probably should have been designated as a SSSI. Certainly I think there was a strong case in the context of the ecology of London and the degree to which the site had been documented (as far back as a flora in 1911). Whether that case can be maintained today is a matter of debate. It probably still ranks as one of the most important grasslands in south London but it is under siege from a variety of forces. The Warden and his team battle valiently, but it is a huge job.

So, what is the lesson that can be drawn from this musing? Well, what really strikes me is how the study of the Common has changed. In the 1950s, 60s and 70s there were several local natural historians who regularly recorded the plants and animals of the common. The great, late, J.E. Lousley published an account of the flora in the 1970s; my late father published an account of the birds around the same time; various notes on the entomology of the common were published by the late Len Parmenter; and I know that Alan Stubbs recorded there on several occasions. The common was also a 'constant effort site' monitored by two local ringers (Mike Netherwood and Mick Cook). In the 1980s there was a comprehensive ecological survey (that I led and edited) and in the early 1990s both David Lees and I recorded Diptera, Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera from the common. It has a long history of recording. Who studies the common today? I cannot recall the last time I saw somebody out birding and it is noticeable that there are rarely any posts on iSpot of plants and animals anywhere near Mitcham. It almost seems as though that fantastic wild asset has been abandoned by natural historians.

I feel sure the invertebrate fauna is still interesting. There are numerous interesting plants to see (e.g. petty whin, spiny restharrow and dwarf gorse). There is also plenty of scope for the inquisitive natural historian to start to record what currently exists, so as to provide a baseline for future analysis. We know the botanical interest in 1911, the 1950's to 1970s and 1983-4. Modern digital technology could make it possible to make much more accurate analyses of the flora; and digital photography allows us to compile very accurate pictures of the changing ecology of a site. What seems to be lacking is anybody to pick up the opportunity.

There seems to be no lack of people interested in wildlife, but instead of taking on a local patch, many of them seem to pursue lists of what they have seen purely as an end in itself. If we are going to make a better job of conserving the country's wildlife we need a renaissance of interest in the study and recording of a local patch. Mitcham Common is just one of several south London Commons that would benefit from renewed interest by local natural historians. I expect there are sites across the country just crying out for their own recorder and champion!

also see

Syrphing Time 

 http://stamfordsyrpher.blogspot.co.uk/

Relevant papers:

http://www.bacoastal.co.uk/Entomology/2003-Mitcom-Flies.pdf

http://www.bacoastal.co.uk/Entomology/1997-Mitcom-Hym.pdf

The Dutch are here!

We must assume that everything will be OK now: the Dutch are here pumping out the Somerset Levels, and experts from Royal Haskoning DHV have flown in from Holland to advise on recovery! We can be reassured because Haskoning staff are on the TV providing proper Dutch advice: so, we had all better listen!

It was therefore interesting to hear the Dutch engineer from Haskoning on Channel 4 tonight. Presented as an expert who had been involved in New Orleans, the message was clear – at last we have people who know what they are doing! And so, what were the great words of wisdom? Well, hardly rocket science:

• The UK and Holland cannot be directly compared because a lot of Holland lies below sea level.
• The Dutch spend about £600m on flood defence each year.
• The UK should spend more money.
• Prioritise what you will protect and what you will let go.

Somewhere I think I have heard something similar, or have I been labouring under false illusions? If I recall correctly, we have Defra and Treasury guidance on cost-benefit analysis. What is this for? Well, it it is not a framework for prioritisation, then I must be sadly mistaken. And, what have we heard from the Environment Agency? I seem to recall Chris Smith saying that the problem was working within the allocated budgets. I also seem to recall that the EA has been forced to cut 1700 jobs this year to save money.

Perhaps what the press should also have said was that many of the flood risk management strategies prepared by the Environment Agency are the work of consultants. They include, to a no small extent, Royal Haskoning DHV! I'd like to get a press and Government 'take' on this and maybe a comment from Eric Pickles on the wisdom of using British-based Dutch consultants.

We must take comfort that there are now proper experts in the UK who will make sure we don't flood again. If there is to be considerably more expenditure on flood defence, money must be found from somewhere. Or, are we going to have to borrow more? The danger is that other environmental management programmes will have to be cut further – maybe water and air quality or perhaps nature conservation?

Fast-forward, The reporting of Channel 4 moved on to the issue of climate change and there were several good sound bites; not least a clear story of extreme weather events in Malaysia and the USA. Unusually high rainfall and associated fatalities in Malaysia were reported, as was extreme drought and very high winter temperatures in California. The message was also clear – basic physics dictates that if the world gets hotter then there will be greater evaporation from the oceans and consequently more rainfall - but not evenly spread around the World.

All of this extreme weather ties in with the predictions. In the case of the UK, the predictions were for more rainfall and increased storminess. Regardless of the cause of climate change, the message is pretty clear: the modelers' predictions are starting to be realised. These, of course, are British modelers, so perhaps the Government had better bring in modelers from a country that knows more about modeling? I'm not sure who might be best placed to do this – maybe Germans, Swiss, Swedish or maybe American? Anybody, as long as they are not fifth columnists from a UK University or institute.

This piece included three interviews with the general public. Two respondents indicated that they had yet to be convinced about climate change, whilst the third came up with the usual point: if there is global warming why is it turning wet and stormy. In other words, global warming equates to nice warm weather. The skeptics must have loved this as the whole message was that somebody had got things wrong here too. I wonder whether there was anybody who said yes they did believe it was climate change? If these three interviewees were representative of the populus as a whole, then a sea-change in action is highly unlikely and we will simply bounce back 50 years to the tried and tested techniques that got us into this mess.

The above might suggest that I am simply having a rant, but actually there is sound logic at the back of what I have said. The point is that the UK has been taking the advice of experts; be they Royal Haskoning's UK arm, or Russell Group universities. On the one hand, we market UK education as amongst the best in the World whilst, on the other, we castigate the products of those universities because they have failed to stop unprecedented floods and storms. Maybe it is time for the policical establishment to wake up to some really hard truths: we have failed to act because out political establishment contains very few scientists. I wonder how many of the current bunch of MPs has an 'O Level' in Physics or Chemistry or, more especially an 'A-Level' in those subjects. I wonder how many have a science-based degree?

If we are to put the 'Great' back into Britain, we need a radical change in direction. Decision-makers need to be equipped with apropriate levels of scientific training. Science needs to be held in the highest esteem and rewarded accordingly. Perhaps the selection committees for prospective parliamentary candidates should have a new set of questions relating to the candidate's ability to understand, assimilate, and act upon sound science? Perhaps the degree in economics or politics and training for government as a 'special advisor' should be replaced by a degree in Physics, Chemistry or Engineering and a spell in the Met Office or an engineering consultancy.

The aftermath of the deluge

Pictures of the towns along the Thames valley and the villages on the Somerset Levels paint a grim picture of Britain in 2014 but, thankfully, we have not seen huge loss of life. We have, however, seen a huge verbal backlash against decent people who have always done their level best to do their jobs according to the rules that limit their ability to deliver what people want. The limitations that Environment Agency staff face are largely financial, but one also has to bear in mind that doing a decent job also demands time and consensus-building. They have a very challenging job, and deserve considerable praise rather than the mud-slinging that we have seen from certain parts of the political establishment and elements of the press (who are always keen to stir up a witch-hunt against public servants).

Wave upon wave of new storms have delivered unprecedented rainfall upon already sodden ground; and, further batterings by major storms along the south and west coast. There is likely to be little respite in the foreseeable future, so the criticism of the EA will doubtless increase in volume. There is barely a voice of reason saying 'hang on, this is the most extreme event in 250 years'.

Critics who argue that the situation should have been planned for have little comprehension of what planning for such events might cost, or might involve. If this year's events become the threshold for flood-risk planning then somebody is going to have to find an awful lot of money, and fast!

It is not the EA who are to blame, but society at large. The voters on the Levels and those in Surrey and Berkshire, whose homes are flooded, live in constituencies that returned Conservative MPs. It is these same MPs who have supported draconian cuts to the budgets of the Environment Agency and Natural England and have represented the democratic voices of their constituents. When the weather was good and there was no risk, both organisations were regarded as too fat, and therefore ripe for efficiency gains. Now, the picture looks a little different, at least for the EA.

But the howls are still there - not only calls for Chris Smith's head, but print space given to the view that 'we need the names of those who gave that advice and confirmation that they will never be allowed near a decision of that importance again'. The latter quote is from that well-known voice of reason and common-sense - the Sun no surprises there!

Both views are utterly reprehensible for several very important reasons:

• If a blame culture develops, public services are paralysed by the need to make sure that nobody makes a decision without seeking sign-off at one or more level above them. This is the 'cover your back' culture that cripples flexibility and initiative.
• Engineering is hardly the highest-paid profession but it demands considerable skill and many years of training. Chartered membership of the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) or the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) only follows further study and rigorous examination. Why should anybody make the effort when a sword hangs over them saying ' one unfortunate extreme event and your head is on the block'?
• The Environment Agency is tasked with shedding about 1,700 posts in the next six months. At the moment, I suspect a great many departures will involve voluntary redundancy and I would not be surprised if many of those who have felt the ire of the public and certain Ministers will be minded to apply. I know that I would if in the same position. Morale cannot be high in these circumstances.
• Precipitating the departure of the oldest and the most experienced, who also tend to be the corporate memory of the organisation, can only lead to mistakes and poor decision-making in future. In other organisations that have taken a similar approach, the result is the reinvention of the square wheel followed by a long process of shaving edges off before somebody is lauded for coming up with the round wheel! Hang on, I think there was something in the text books that we burned at the start of that revolution!

These problems could have been avoided if there was proper respect for technical professionals, and a recognition from an early stage that the events that are unfolding are unprecedented. So, if the blame game has to start anywhere, it must lie with successive Governments who have sought to cap expenditure on flood and erosion risk management. They now face three major challenges:

1. Managing and supporting a recovery amongst the communities that have been so badly affected by the floods.
2. Repairing the credibility of the water engineers whose reputations have been mindlessly trashed by irresponsible damnation of advice received based on the sound application of Government guidance.
3. Crafting a long-term response to these flooding problems without jeopardising the funds available to respond to the dangers that have been identified, but which have yet to happen.

There are numerous lessons to be learned from these various events, but perhaps the most important one is not to dismiss solutions that require:

• reinforcing planning policy guidance and decision-making where development in the floodplain is proposed;
• changes in agricultural practices to make sure that water is not flushed from the uplands to the lowlands as fast as possible;
• changes in agri-environment funding to promote better flood storage at a variety of points within a catchment; and
• flood-proofing buildings and communities to minimise the impacts of future events.

The reality is that these events are just a harbinger of the future if climate change predictions are to be believed. After this winter, perhaps even some of the skeptics will start to recognise that there is at least a grain of truth about the process and implications of climate change, even if they will not accept that the causes are largely anthropogenic!

The Dutch approach - some more information

Yesterday, I made various comments on the merits, or otherwise, of using Dutch engineers to address flooding issues in England. In that comment I made the point that the level of Dutch investment in flood defences was beyond my knowledge. I subsequently spent a bit of time looking for this information. Doubtless I would find it easily if I spoke Dutch, but I don't! I did, however, find a very interesting presentation by the President of the Dutch Association of Water Authorities.

http://www.slideshare.net/naoiseomuiri/dutch-flood-defence-presentation

It is 3.5 years old, but it does provide an indication of the sorts of expenditure made by the Dutch, which as far as I can see are about the 80% of the total expenditure for England. That is by a population of 16.7 million as opposed to 51.5 million in England - roughly £24.00 per head of population as opposed to about £13.00 per head of population.My figures are very 'back of a fag packet so don't take them as absolute! When you bear in mind the extent of the English coastline and river systems as opposed to those of Holland, the differential is clearly much greater.

Perhaps the more important aspect of the presentation is the emphasis on adaptation to flooding rather than just building food defences and deepening rivers. What do we see: the use of flood storage areas, adapting buildings and relocating critical infrastructure! I note that flood storage is linked to a 1 in 25 year return period, which is considerably lower than the current floods in England.

What strikes me most about this presentation is that it is being made by a Dutch Water Engineer; not an English Conservationist. The ideas are, curiously, remarkably similar to some aspects of the approach that the Environment Agency has built into its Catchment Management Plans. The emphasis on relocation of key assets and flood-proofing buildings is where I think the differences lie, as we really have yet to start to talk in detail about re-locating key assets and designing new ones that are properly flood-proofed if they lie in a floodplain.

Post-script

In a radio 4  interview a few minutes after I made this post, there was a piece on a Dutch delegation having come to the UK to determine what they might do to help. In that piece, Dutch expenditure was quoted as double that of the UK. The problem I think in this respect is that there are probably several different sets of figures to go on: EA expenditure on capital defences, EA expenditure on maintenance, expenditure by IDBs on local infrastructure maintenance make up several different components of spending in England. Similarly, the Dutch have national and local expenditure, so the big question is the nature of the figures quoted - it may be comparing apples with pears.

What I thought was more interesting was that the Dutch interviewee talked about the fact that Holland and England were very different and should not be compared. Even more interestingly, he focused on the Dutch learning from us in relation to cost-benefit analysis!

Dutch Engineers - do they know best?

On various recent occasions there have been very public comments on the failings of the Environment Agency. Critics have argued that they would invite Dutch engineers to solve the problems of the Levels. The Dutch should be immensely proud of the reputation they have established in England and the esteem with which they are held in parts of English society.

It is certainly true that 17th and 18th Centuries Dutch engineers were in the vanguard of drainage of wetlands. Indeed, we might also reflect that the Dutch have probably played one of the most important roles in eliminating the wetland wildlife of England!

We are now in the 21st Century rather than the 17th Century. The engineering principles the Dutch employed are now very well known and there are plenty of UK engineering companies who have the same skills and expertise. They will happily sell this expertise to UK taxpayers and are already employed in a great many capacities. In some places, one almost gets the impression that they ARE the Environment Agency. So, why pay the Dutch and favour their economy to the detriment of our own exchequer?

Design principles are not particularly difficult. Water conveyance simply depends upon capacity within the channels, the fall of the land,  and whether water can be conveyed into major conduits using flap valves or if there is a need to lift it into rivers and major drains using pumps. The subsequent test is the design dimensions - what sorts of volumes are the systems designed to accommodate?

So, the key question is not where the engineers come from, but how much money you are willing to spend. The greater the planned capacity, the greater the cost. Furthermore, if you design a system of defence against flooding from rivers there is a question of the design of resilience to major events - how big should the flood defences be? The costs of flood defences are directly related to the level of protection that is aspired to: bigger schemes require more engineering clay and there will therefore be greater transportation costs and impacts of lorry movements on the communities along the way.

It is notable that even the Dutch, those masters of drainage and flood management, are talking about soft engineering and even using flood storage! Actually, the Dutch are probably at the cutting edge of such approaches. Many of their major defences are designed to a level of 1:1000 year return period and I have heard of levels of 1: 4000 years defence levels. The flood embankments in many places are like small mountains! The cost must have been astronomical and, of course, it does not stop there because defences have to be maintained and replaced. I have not got a clue what the yearly flood defence budget is, but I would guess it is much more substantial per-capita than in the UK. Small wonder that they are looking for greater cost-effectiveness and are exponents of soft engineering.

The Dutch have a relatively short coastline and invested huge sums in the Delta project to shorten their coastline still further. They also have relatively few rivers, so the river flood defences are relatively less onerous. A great deal of their problems relate to surface water drainage and therefore pumping because a lot of Holland lies at or below sea level. In the winter this challenge is immediately apparent when one flies into Schipol - huge areas of farmland under water or partially inundated. Even the Dutch cannot keep the floodwaters fully at bay in the winter.

Given the demands for vastly increased defences against flooding on the Levels, there is a need to look carefully at the relative costs. How many people and what land area elsewhere could be protected if the current level of defence is maintained on the levels and the proposed maintenance budget is spent on other capital projects? Would the money be well-spent on the Levels or better spent elsewhere? This is a debate that involves all taxpayers.

This is also the challenge that the Environment Agency grapples with on a daily basis across the length and breadth of England, with its huge coastline and numerous rivers and floodplains. They have been doing so in the face of ever-tightening budget constraints that are also compressed by engineering costs that rise at a pace that greatly outstrips inflation.

Maybe it is time to put the critics into the hot seat and let them make the decisions. Once they have made their decisions they would also have to defend them against uproar from the communities they choose not to favour! I doubt the critics would cope well because there innumerable deserving cases.