RAE/S3/08/3/A RURAL AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT … · RURAL AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA 3rd Meeting, 2008 (Session 3) Wednesday 6 February 2008 The Committee will meet at

RAE/S3/08/3/A

RURAL AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

AGENDA

3rd Meeting, 2008 (Session 3)

Wednesday 6 February 2008

The Committee will meet at 10.00 am in Committee Room 1.

1. Flooding and flood management inquiry: The Committee will take evidence, in a round-table discussion, from—

Veronica Burbridge, Director, Royal Town Planning Institute; Bill Dodds, Assistant Chief Executive, Scottish Building Standards Agency; Mike Donaghy, Freshwater Policy Officer, WWF Scotland; Ronnie Falconer, Past President, Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management; Andrea Johnstonova, Freshwater Policy Officer, RSPB Scotland; Wendy Kenyon, Senior Research Fellow, Macaulay Institute; David Martin, Scottish Hydrological Group; Blair Melville, Planning Manager, Homes for Scotland; Tom Nisbet, Head of Water, Soil and Heritage Research Group, Forestry Commission Scotland; Karen Smyth, Rural Development Manager, Scottish Rural Property and Business Association; John Thomson, Director of Strategy & Communications, Scottish Natural Heritage; and Hamish Trench, Head of Natural Heritage and Land Management Group, Cairngorms National Park Authority.

2. Pig industry: The Committee will consider briefings from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre and from the National Farmers Union Scotland, and decide what action to take.

3. Flooding and flood management inquiry (in private): The Committee will consider the evidence heard earlier in the meeting with a view to identifying preliminary conclusions.

4. Subordinate legislation (in private): The Committee will consider a draft report on the draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2007, the draft Quality Meat Scotland Order 2008 and the Sheep and Goats (Identification and Traceability) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/559).

Andrew Mylne Clerk to the Committee

Room no. T1.01 Tel no. 0131 348 5240

Email: [email protected]

MAILTO:[email protected]

RAE/S3/08/3/A

The following papers are attached for this meeting:

Agenda item 1 Submission from Cairngorms National Park Authority Submission from Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management Submission from Forestry Commission Scotland Submission from Homes for Scotland Submission from the Macaulay Institute Submission from Royal Town Planning Institute Submission from Scottish Building Standards Agency Submission from Scottish Environment LINK Submission from Scottish Hydrological Group Submission from Scottish Natural Heritage Submission from Scottish Rural Property and Business Association Briefing paper (PRIVATE PAPER)

RAE/S3/08/3/1 RAE/S3/08/3/2 RAE/S3/08/3/3 RAE/S3/08/3/4 RAE/S3/08/3/5 RAE/S3/08/3/6 RAE/S3/08/3/7 RAE/S3/08/3/8 RAE/S3/08/3/9 RAE/S3/08/3/10 RAE/S3/08/3/11 RAE/S3/08/3/12

Agenda item 2 SPICe briefing Briefing from NFU Scotland

RAE/S3/08/3/13 RAE/S3/08/3/14

Agenda item 4 Extract from the Subordinate Legislation Committee’s 3rd Report, 2008 (Session 3) Letter from Cabinet Secretary to the Convener on the Sheep and Goats (Identification and Traceability) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 Letter from Cabinet Secretary to the Convener regarding the Quality Meat Scotland Order 2008 Draft report (PRIVATE PAPER)

RAE/S3/08/3/15 RAE/S3/08/3/16 RAE/S3/08/3/17 RAE/S3/08/3/18

RAE/S3/08/3/A

The following papers are attached for information: Letter from the Convener to the Cabinet Secretary on flooding and flood management evidence given by Professor Crichton and Scottish Water (follow-up from last meeting)

RAE/S3/08/3/19

Note from the clerks on the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting (21-22 January 2008)

RAE/S3/08/3/20

Note from the clerks on a Scottish Government agriculture seminar (29 January 2008)

RAE/S3/08/3/21

Note of recent developments within the Committee’s remit

RAE/S3/08/3/22

Minutes of the last meeting RAE/S3/08/2/M

RAE/S3/08/3/1 Agenda item 1


SUBMISSION FROM CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY The Cairngorms National Park contains the headwaters of major rivers in Scotland: the Spey, the Dee the Esk and the Don. Historically, flooding within the National Park area has disrupted communities, schools and resulted in damage to infrastructure and businesses, yet it also plays an important part in the natural processes that influence the condition of a range of important habitats. The Cairngorms National Park Authority interest in this inquiry can be briefly summarised as follows:

Co-ordinating the delivery of the aims of the National Park and the National Park Plan;

Addressing the existing and increased risk of flooding within the CNPA area;

Assessing what can be done within our area to help reduce the risks of flooding downstream

Management of land and headwaters in the National Park has a significant influence on flood management downstream.

Using the National Park as an opportunity to trial more forward thinking approaches to flood risk management than those possible thus far.

We have sought to answer the seven questions below, but by way of summary and introduction we make the following key points:

1) Flooding can cause major devastation, but it is important to consider flooding as a natural process that also has benefits to the environment and to society.

2) As far as possible the impacts of flooding should be mitigated against on a catchment-wide basis.

3) The emphasis on flood control should be on appropriate landuse management at source and not increasing built infrastructure downstream.

4) River basins within the National Park are already extensively managed; it will require further targeted management to counter flood risks.

5) Reinstatement of wetlands in floodplains in suitable areas should be encouraged, but remain a voluntary option for land managers

1. What is the potential impact of climate change on the frequency and severity of all types of flooding in Scotland? Historically, flooding is a major issue in the area covered by the Cairngorms National Park. Thomas Dick Lauder’s account of the Great Moray Floods of


1829, vividly illustrates the death and destruction that occurred in the Cairngorms following a localized summer rain event. A flash flood event in June 1914 at the Baddengorm Burn by Carrbridge caused 5 deaths when a train plunged into floodwaters (the greatest number of deaths from this type of event ever recorded in the UK). There was a further event on the same burn in 1923. The August 1978 flood on the Allt Mhor took out bridges and caused widespread damage to the Cairngorm ski road and stranded over 100 people. Flooding in 1915 on the Spey destroyed 10 rail bridges and culverts. More recently flooding on the Spey in the 1980 and 1990 inundated properties and businesses in Aviemore. Climate change may increase frequency, ‘bunching’ and scale of flood events. It may lead to an increase in summer flooding and intense localized events. Whilst until now we have had occasional big floods in summer, the most significant floods have been autumnal (rainfall) and winter/early spring (combination of rainfall and rapid snow melt). This is likely to change to include more long duration summer floods. Small tributary burns with channel modifications running through villages have the potential for high levels of localized damage and destruction. For example, in recent years the Gynack Burn, flowing through Kingussie has burst from its small channel to close the main Perth to Inverness rail link and the local secondary school. The shift to summer floods has consequences not only for residents of the Park but also for visitors and hence there is the potential for significant economic consequences if increased flooding results in disrupted infrastructure and disturbance to the tourist industry. The consequences of flooding will impact on socio-economic issues and also on natural and cultural heritage with the possibility of significant damage e.g. to populations of breeding birds nesting close to rivers or due to damage of cultural sites. Flood events in peak tourist seasons may create impacts affecting infrastructure and water based activities leading to significant economic impacts. Most major entry points to the Park and to some key visitor attractions like Cairngorm Mountain are on roads passing through hill ground subject to landslip and damage to bridges. Increased flooding may affect agriculture by affecting crops and supplies of winter feed. 60% of the CNP is peat moorland – changes in upland habitats in particular due to climate changes will alter adsorption and run off rates thereby increasing flooding speed and intensity. These are high carbon soils and flooding will release dissolved CO2 thereby adding to climate change. Habitat change may also alter sediment load (most CNP rivers are flowing through glacial gravels and would be naturally braided but in many locations have been confined to channels which can be come blocked with gravel leading to over topping) – especially where bridges or other features compress the channel.


Structural failure of infrastructure is more likely and many are in remote areas cutting communities off and hampering key services. 2. What changes are needed to the existing legislation? There should be a duty on all public sector organisations to further sustainable flood risk management by incorporating flood risk in Strategic Environmental Assessments of plans, policies and operational work. There should be a requirement to conduct flood management planning at the catchment scale (to include land uses such as forestry, moorland and agriculture) to allow sustainable approaches to flood risk management. There should be a review of the existing organisational arrangements to see if the splitting of responsibilities as exists now between different public sector bodies provides the best framework for delivering sustainable flood risk management. There should be a national framework for sustainable flood risk management to provide the leadership and focus to address this increasingly important issue. This needs to go further than the existing planning guidance. It needs to address at a strategic level the direction for flood risk management at a national scale. It is important that these issues are addressed nationally in order that key strategic issues such as national economic development policy, infrastructure development and housing needs are taken into account. There then need to be a responsibility for the production of sustainable flood risk management strategies and action plans locally. These should replace those produced currently by local authorities to be produced on a river catchment basis to better reflect the physical systems involved. 3. Who should be responsible for flood management and how should it be funded? The approach to flooding needs to be a co-ordinated response across the public sector. There is currently the potential for confusion with different agencies involved in the planning and management of floods. In the public eyes it is confusing to have one organisation (Scottish Water) responsible for surface flooding issues (from sewers) and local authorities responsible for wider flooding issues and SEPA responsible for providing flood risk maps and flood warnings. When a big flood comes, both sewers and watercourses are likely to be overwhelmed and the effects interact with each other. Therefore our planning and management needs to reflect this as does the communication with the public and elected representatives etc when the planning against flooding is discussed.


The funding for flood risk management should be realigned to ensure that there is opportunity, potential and encouragement to spend on flood mitigation measures that are physically located outwith the local authority area with the flooding problem. The issues of responsibility and maintenance needs to be addressed. Most importantly, this would encourage upstream more sustainable measures rather than hard engineering at the point of flooding. The legislation should allow funding to be made available for softer measures e.g. flooding upstream land and Sustainable Drainage Systems. The last two should be required for new developments (see 5 below) but grants should be made available for retrofitting where opportunities allow and for installation as part of a flood relief programme. Rural Development Contracts provided through the Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) could be directed towards floodplain management (e.g. allowing reinstatement of wetlands where barriers are currently in place) and upland management to reduce flash flooding (e.g. blocking hill drains and re-afforestation). In deciding on the costs and benefits associated with mitigation it is important that the social and welfare costs associated with flooding are taken into account rather than just the purely financial e.g. some value needs to be placed on the health and psychological impacts of flooded families being unable to return to their homes for months. The costs of flood defence measures should be weighed up alongside the benefits of upper catchment landuse management flood prevention measures. 4. What role should sustainable flood management play in mitigating the effects of flooding? Flood management must be carried out on a whole catchment basis. Land-use management of the upper catchment is crucial to the success of flood management downstream. Reinstatement of wetlands in floodplains in suitable areas can provide some mitigation and should be encouraged, but remain a voluntary option for land managers. Novel approaches should be encouraged and lessons learned from elsewhere especially from Europe. For many years “right to flood” schemes have been operated successfully by the Environment Agency. Farmland is identified that can be used in a flood to flood basins. Farmers are given an ongoing payment for the right to flood plus an enhanced payment when flooding occurs. Where feasible natural floodplains should be reinstated not just to reduce flood risk downstream but also to enhance wetland environments and provide amenity areas. There are examples where this can be achieved in settlements as well as in the countryside. Land use planning at the catchment scale would


help identify areas where land use can be moderated and altered to reduce the potential for downstream flooding. There should be strict management of activities likely to disturb the equilibrium of the rivers such as channel excavations. Particular attention should be paid to built structures likely to cause increased build up of large debris which may block channels and increase erosion in sensitive areas. Water courses and river banks should be managed to mitigate against the impacts on flow created by built structures. There should be an emphasis on soft engineering and habitat management in the riparian zone. 5. What role can land-use management, the planning system and building regulations play in mitigating the effects of flooding? There should be mechanisms to allow land use planning at the catchment scale to address not just flooding issues but wider environmental matters e.g. carbon budgeting. This should then be integrated within planning systems to ensure activities that might lead to increased flood risk e.g. access roads for forestry etc are brought within planning control. Best practice across the rural land uses should be reviewed to consider if it can further promote sustainable flood risk management. For example whilst currently the Forests and Water Guidelines are useful in enforcing good practice regarding runoff management in forests subject to grant aid. Mechanisms need to be considered as to how these might be enforced more generally. Architects, developers, the building research organisations and the public sector should be brought together to drive forward the issues of sustainable water use and drainage in a development context in order to deliver practical, innovative and affordable design, e.g. grey water /rain water recycling, green roofs. Elements of sustainable design linked to mitigating against flood risk should be a requirement under both building regulation and planning control. In large catchments the issue of cumulative impact of development on flood risk needs to be addressed. Further work is needed on how this can be calculated in order than planning authorities and National Park Authorities can consider this in their planning decisions. Perhaps consideration needs to be given to some form of “planning gain” whereby each new development is subject to a levy which is used towards flood risk management. The scale of this levy could be reduced depending on the extent to which the design is sustainable. The inclusion of incentives through the SRDP to enable land managers to reinstate natural wetlands in flood plains would compensate for loss of earnings and help reduce the risk of damage to infrastructure downstream.


This needs to be combined with incentives to support upland management such as re-afforestation to reduce flooding peaks, and decrease sediment movement. Careful prevention and management of erosion resulting from hill roads can reduce risk of localized land slips, sedimentation and destruction of natural water channels. Particular attention is needed to guide construction of renewable energy installations in uplands or on river banks, so as to avoid exacerbating runoff rates and/or erosion. 6. Are there any improvements needed to existing flood warning systems? Flood warning systems should be further developed as the need arises. A particular concern within the park area is that the areas susceptible to flooding are in the upper part of often complex catchments so the modelling associated with providing flood warnings is not straightforward. Attention should be paid to the need to improve hydrological modelling of the catchments particularly recognising the potential shift in risk from winter to summer floods. Consideration also needs to be given to the dissemination of flood warnings. If there is a shift to summer flooding the warnings will need to be targeted not just at residents but also at visitors who may be unfamiliar with the area, the language and the potential risk. 7. How effective are the responses to flooding events? The issues raised in 6 regarding a transient population need to be also considered in developing operational response systems when a flood either is forecast or occurs.



SUBMISSION FROM THE CHARTERED INSTITUTION OF WATER AND

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) is the leading professional and qualifying body for those who are responsible for the stewardship of environmental assets. The Institution provides independent comment, within a multi-disciplinary framework, on the wide range of issues related to water and environmental management and sustainable development. CIWEM welcomes the opportunity to provide comment in response to the Flooding and Flood Management Inquiry. We hope that the attached comments are of value to you. Should you wish us to expand on or clarify any of the points raised please do not hesitate to contact us. We would be pleased to submit oral evidence to the inquiry, as there are many issues which we have highlighted which would benefit from further, in-depth examination. General Comments This response is submitted by the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM), whose membership comprises over 10,000 professionals in water and environmental disciplines, many of which are relevant to flood management. The questions raised by the inquiry have been carefully considered by CIWEM’s Scottish Branch, and Rivers and Coastal Group, and they have prepared this joint response for consideration. As in other parts of the UK, this is a critical time for flood management in Scotland. The summer 2007 floods in England have highlighted the fact that flooding can arise from many sources and the real need for close cooperation between stakeholder organisations to jointly address the flooding challenge. Climate change will progressively exacerbate the risk and adaptation strategies likewise will require a joined-up approach. Transposition of Directive 2007/60/EC on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks provides an ideal opportunity to update and streamline Scottish flood legislation and to build on the work which has already been initiated by the Scottish Government (through the Flood Issues Advisory Committee and predecessor bodies) to develop the objectives and principles of sustainable flood management which are held in high regard in the UK and Europe. CIWEM therefore welcomes this opportunity to support the inquiry and wholeheartedly supports its objectives. CIWEM will be pleased to provide oral evidence should this be requested. Responses to Questions


1. Potential impact of climate change on the frequency and severity of all types of flooding in Scotland? 1.1 Although the IPCC 4th Assessment Report and the EU Green Paper on Adapting to Climate Change (COM (2007) 354) broadly review likely impacts of climate change globally and in Europe, scaling effects still present difficulties in predicting likely impacts regionally within Scotland. Models are continually improving and it may well be possible to assess likely regional variations in the near future that will supplement predictions from observations of trends in temperature, rainfall, sea level rise and other relevant climatic indicators. 1.2 In addition to likely increases of 20-30% in annual rainfall over this century, which will have a significant impact on fluvial flood risk across the country to a varying extent, rising sea level coupled with an increase in frequency and magnitude of storm surge and wave action could be an even greater concern in terms of estuarine and coastal flood risk. Major urban conurbations including parts of Edinburgh and Leith, parts of Glasgow and towns along the Clyde Estuary, and parts of Dundee, Aberdeen, Inverness, Perth, Dumfries and other towns and settlements along coasts and estuaries could be particularly vulnerable. 1.3 With greater energy in weather systems possibly associated with raised temperatures and climate change, pluvial (surface water) flooding could become a significant flood risk across Northern Europe including Scotland. This type of flooding was a significant factor in the summer 2007 floods in England when flooding occurred at locations, which were not expected to be at risk of flooding. Rainfall can be so intense that the runoff can totally overwhelm surface and underground drainage systems. Theoretically, no area is entirely free from the risk of pluvial flooding although techniques are now emerging to enable ‘more vulnerable’ locations to be identified. 1.4 With higher rainfall intensities, the frequency of flash flooding from watercourses may also increase. Areas vulnerable to this type of flooding should also be addressed. 1.5 Flooding for underground sewerage and drainage systems is also likely to increase, as will discharges from combined sewer overflows. Investment to significantly improve design standards could be disproportionately expensive and greater emphasis on sustainable drainage systems, reducing ‘urban creep’ through planning controls and consideration of dual surface and below ground drainage systems may be more cost effective. 1.6 Climate change is also a significant factor in considering Reservoir Safety and revision of present requirements under the Reservoirs Act may be required if an increased risk of catastrophic flooding associated with dam breach is to be avoided. Similar consideration also needs to be given to the risk of canal breach.


1.7 Although recent research by Defra has assessed the tsunami risk to the UK as being of a similar order to that of tidal surge in terms of possible impact, the risk should not be ignored (including the risk of a tsunami generated off the coast of Norway similar to the Storega event). Sea level rise could exacerbate the extent of areas that might be vulnerable. 2. What changes are needed to the existing legislation? 2.1 CIWEM welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to taking a more strategic, modern and sustainable approach to flood management in Scotland and any proposals which would streamline flood prevention, planning and other statutory procedures. 2.2 The proposed Flooding Bill provides the opportunity to update or replace the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 and associated legislation and at the same time implement the requirements of the Directive 2007/60/EC of 23 October 2007 on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks (the ‘Floods Directive’). The Directive is viewed as providing a sound framework for new Scottish flooding legislation as much of the Directive is based on sustainable flood management principles in line with those developed for Scotland by the Flood Issues Advisory Committee and its predecessors. 2.3 Whilst it is accepted that some of the statutory procedures under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 and associated legislation may need to remain, the opportunity should be taken to review and update these procedures in the light of perceived deficiencies in the present system. In broad terms, these deficiencies include: • The need for closer integration of statutory flood management procedures

with planning procedures and those under the Controlled Activities Regulations with streamlining of procedures wherever possible.

• The need to review and improve where possible the Public Inquiry process including the eligibility of objections and the need for an inquiry even if one objection remains.

• Advertising requirements can involve considerable administrative effort and should be reviewed taking advantage of electronic communication where possible.

• The need for easier modification of scheme proposals. • The need for a simple fast-track process for small flood management

schemes or measures. • The need for greater flexibility in the specification of flood management

measures to allow, for example, catchment-wide land management measures.

2.4 The existing legislation neither promotes nor encourages strategic flood management which is at the heart of sustainable flood management principles. This needs to be incorporated into new legislation. Provision needs to be made for funding of development and implementation of strategic flood management policy.


3. Who should be responsible for flood management and how should it be funded? 3.1 CIWEM believes there should be a single national body to act as the strategic authority to oversee and coordinate the preparation of Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments, Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and Flood Risk Management Plans to meet the requirements of the Floods Directive. This body would act as the ‘competent authority’ under the Directive and be responsible also for overseeing close coordination between Flood Risk management plans and River Basin Management Plans. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) might be one option to fulfil this role. 3.2 CIWEM also believes that that this single strategic authority should be supported by a national advisory group to review and direct implementation of national flooding policy, review effectiveness and adjust policy as appropriate taking into account developing knowledge and practice on climate change and adaptation. This could be a small group with stakeholder and advisory representation similar to the former Flood Issues Advisory Committee but facilitated and funded by the Scottish Government. 3.3 Strategic plan development and implementation at catchment / river basin level could be undertaken by a consortium involving SEPA, local authorities, Scottish Water, SNH and other key stakeholders with Scottish Government representation as appropriate. Central funding by Scottish Government would be needed to support strategic activities, which would be underpinned by new legislation. Strong leadership to effectively coordinate the work of such strategic ‘Flood Management Groups’ would be a key issue. This should not necessarily be prescriptive and could vary from one region to another. Such groups could work in parallel with, and coordinate with, the river basin Area Advisory Groups formed under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act. 3.4 It is envisaged that primary responsibility for implementation of specific flood management measures and schemes would remain with local authorities who have the important parallel and linked responsibilities for land use planning and for flood emergency response in conjunction with other Category 1 responders. Funding could be largely as under present arrangements but further consideration would need to be given to prioritisation to ensure that projects meet strategic needs and are in accordance with national flood management policy. 4. What role should sustainable flood management play in mitigating the effects of flooding? 4.1 Sustainable flood management is fundamental to mitigating the effects of flooding. Guidance should build on work of the Flood Issues Advisory Committee and its predecessors in developing objectives, principles and key indicators.


4.2 Developing guidance should be closely allied to evolving research and direction on climate change adaptation strategies. 4.3 A much better understanding is now being gained on the social impact of flooding, not just during an event, but often for a long period after an event. This requires much greater consideration in the evaluation of flood management measures at both the strategic and scheme-specific level. 4.4 Sustainable flood management will also rely on an integrated approach involving all the major stakeholders working closely together. A possible model has been discussed in the response to Question 3. In addressing urban flooding in particular, an integrated approach will be essential to take into account the interaction between fluvial, pluvial (surface water) and sewer flooding. 5. What role can land-use management, the planning system and building regulations play in mitigating the effects of flooding? 5.1 Land-use management is viewed as having a key role in sustainable flood management. For example, flood risk mitigation through land-use management including farming practices and forest management in the upper and middle catchment can be used to offset adverse climate change effects on a similar timescale. 5.2 The spatial planning system is also fundamental to sustainable flood management in exercising control over development in floodplain areas. Further strengthening of the existing system is envisaged possibly involving review of the present SPP7 to bring in line with PPS25 in England particularly with regard to ‘exception testing’. SPP7 presently offers the opportunity for land raising. The scope for making best use of sustainable land raising opportunities, particularly where there may be wider benefits for flood mitigation, should receive due consideration in the planning process. 5.3 Building regulations have an important role to play in promoting increased resilience and resistance of buildings to flooding (public and domestic). Measures should be introduced to provide financial support to property owners to raise the level of flood resistance and resilience of their property. Insurers could also encourage such measures as a part of building restoration following flooding. 6. Are there any improvements needed to existing flood warning systems? 6.1 CIWEM would support the expansion of the present flood warning system in Scotland in order to increase the level of preparedness for flooding. Existing flood management schemes often include flood gates or demountable defences and in future, there may be wider use of demountable and raisable systems particularly where visual amenity is an issue. Such systems depend on a robust flood warning system and there is a need to ensure that existing and future flood warning systems are well maintained.


6.2 High rainfall intensity pluvial flood events are likely to become an increasing challenge. CIWEM understand that the Met Office are developing the capability to potentially provide ‘Pluvial Flooding Proximity Alerts’ which may help to mitigate the impact of such flood events when coupled with mapping of potentially vulnerable areas as part of a pluvial extreme event planning approach. The possible application of such techniques should be considered for Scotland. An information service to provide advance warning for groundwater flooding could also be considered where such a risk exists. 7. How effective are the responses to flooding events? 7.1 CIWEM understands that the response by Category I responders to recent flood events in Scotland has been good. However, lessons from the summer 2007 flooding in England should be examined and, in particular, recommendations from the Pitt Review should be considered in terms of possible relevance for Scottish flood response. 7.2 CIWEM also considers that current Flood Emergency Plans should be reviewed to take into account all possible sources of flooding including pluvial (surface water) flooding. Regular exercises should be conducted to test such plans.



SUBMISSION FROM FORESTRY COMMISSION SCOTLAND

The Role of Woodland In Flood Control: A Landscape Perspective Abstract Sustainable flood management is increasingly looking to the role of catchment land use in alleviating downstream flooding. Woodland presents a number of opportunities that are dependent on its location within the landscape. One way that woodland can attenuate flooding is through the greater water use by trees. The overall impact on the generation of flood flows, however, depends on the interaction of many factors and is most marked at the headwater level. Another way relies on the ‘sponge effect’. Improved infiltration resulting from the targeted planting of sensitive soils or the use of down-slope woodland buffers could attenuate rapid run-off at the local scale. Finally, the greater hydraulic roughness associated with riparian and floodplain woodland can aid the retention and delay the passage of flood waters, potentially assisting downstream flood defence in larger catchments. This paper examines each of these opportunities and considers whether woodland can make a significant contribution to tackling future flooding as part of a whole-catchment approach to sustainable flood management. Keywords: Woodland, water use, soil infiltration, hydraulic roughness, sustainable flood management Introduction 1. A series of major floods across Europe in recent years has raised serious

concern that the frequency of extreme floods may be increasing due to climate change. Model predictions of a 35% rise in winter rainfall and a 25% increase in daily rainfall totals for storm events in some parts of the UK by 2080, based on the ‘business as usual scenario’ (Hulme et al. 2002), has placed the management of flood risk high up the political agenda. This has been reinforced by the fact that the consequences of flooding are expected to become more severe and expensive with the rise in the value of the built environment and pressure to build on the floodplain.

2. At the same time, the increasing cost of providing hard engineered flood

defences and the growing emphasis on sustainable development has resulted in greater attention being given to finding more sustainable, ‘softer engineering’ solutions. This is reflected in the Government’s Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy ‘Making Space for Water’ (Defra, 2005). A key pillar of the strategy is to adopt a whole catchment approach and make greater use of rural land use solutions, including the creation of wetlands, washlands and effective land management techniques.

1


3. Forests and woodland have long been associated with an ability to slow

down run-off and reduce downstream flooding (McCulloch and Robinson, 1993). In fact, deforestation has often been cited as a major contributing factor in the apparent rise in flood events in the developing world. Re-planting or creating new forests is increasingly viewed as offering a number of opportunities to help reduce flood risk. The potential to assist flood defence however, is highly dependent on the scale of forest cover and its location within the landscape. Other important factors include the type of forest and how it is managed. This paper examines whether woodland expansion in the UK could make a significant contribution to tackling the predicted rise in flood risk, as part of a whole-catchment approach to sustainable flood management.

Woodland and floods Water use by trees 4. The most obvious way that woodland can attenuate flooding is through the

greater water use by trees. Trees and woodlands can use more water than shorter types of vegetation mainly due to the interception of rainwater by their aerodynamically rougher canopies (Nisbet, 2005). A distinction can be drawn between conifers and broadleaves, with evergreen conifers tending to have a greater water use because high interception losses are maintained throughout the year, particularly during the winter when conditions are usually wettest and windiest.

5. Studies in the UK have found that between 25 and 45% of annual rainfall

is typically lost by interception from conifer stands, compared to 10-25% for broadleaves (Calder et al. 2003). If such losses could be transferred to flood flows then forestry could make a major contribution to flood reduction. However, interception varies greatly throughout the year and in particular, declines with the size and intensity of a given rainstorm. Light showers can be completely intercepted, while losses as a proportion of rainfall decline with increasing rainfall intensity, reaching a maximum of 6-7 mm d-1 for conifers (Calder, 1990). This reflects the relatively small water holding capacity of forest canopies, equivalent to only a few mm of rain water. As a result, interception losses are likely to be <10% for individual major storm events. The impact of broadleaves is even smaller, especially for events during the leafless period, which is often when the risk of flooding is greatest. Another factor is tree age, with the greater water use of forests only becoming fully established when the canopy closes, which tends to occur at around 10-15 years age in conifer plantations and even later for broadleaves.

6. A downside of the increased water use by trees is the potential impact on

catchment water yield. Any reduction in flood flows could be outweighed by the effect on water supplies and dry weather flows, especially in catchments where water demand exceeds supply. This is likely to become an increasingly important issue as the combination of drier summers and rising water demand generates ever greater pressure on water resources.

2


Conservation and other constraints would also limit the scope for realising the potentially greater flood benefit associated with an expansion in conifer woodland.

The ‘sponge effect’ 7. Another way that woodland can affect flood flows is by their soils holding

back and delaying the passage of rain water to streams and rivers. Woodland soils tend to have a more open structure resulting from greater amounts of organic matter, the action of tree roots and soil fauna, and the lower level of soil disturbance by man. The presence of a network of macropores helps to transmit water quickly to depth, reducing the likelihood of surface saturation and rapid run-off. These conditions enhance the ability of the soil to receive and store rain water and are commonly referred to as a ‘sponge effect’.

8. Time of year and soil type affect the magnitude of the sponge effect. It is

usually greatest during summer and autumn periods due to the generally drier condition of woodland soils and therefore larger capacity to store rain water. Consequently, the flood alleviation benefit could be expected to be most marked for flood events generated by seasonal thunderstorms. However, this effect can be constrained in organic soils by the tendency for soil drying to result in greater hydrophobicity, which promotes rapid surface run-off. Once woodland soils are rewetted during the autumn, they will have a reduced capacity to receive and hold storm water and thus to influence winter and spring flooding.

9. The sponge effect is associated with both conifer and broadleaved

woodland, but is strongly influenced by management practices (see below). The benefit from new planting would be greatest where woodland replaces land uses associated with a high risk of soil damage. This is especially the case in the UK, where storm rainfall intensities rarely exceed ‘natural’ soil infiltration rates (Ward and Robinson, 2000). Recent studies at Pont Bren in Wales have found infiltration rates up to 60 times higher under young native woodland compared to grazed pasture (Bird et al. 2003). The rates under compacted pasture are readily exceeded during storm events, leading to rapid run-off and potentially higher flood flows.

10. Soils that are prone to structural damage such as surface capping and

shallow compaction would probably benefit most from a change to woodland. Opportunities exist for targeting woodland planting onto the most sensitive soils or in key locations for intercepting and ‘soaking-up’ surface run-off generated from the adjacent ground. Examples include using woodland buffers along lower field edges or within the riparian zones of streams and rivers.

Hydraulic roughness 11. The use of riparian and floodplain woodland to delay the progression of

flood flows may offer the greatest potential to assist flood control. This

3


relies on the hydraulic roughness created by woody debris dams within stream channels and by the physical presence of trees, shrubs and deadwood on the floodplain. The net effect of these features is to reduce flood velocities, enhance out of bank flows, and increase water storage on the floodplain, resulting in an overall smaller downstream flood event.

12. Hydraulic modelling studies in south west England demonstrate that the

planting of woodland across the floodplain could have a marked effect on flood flows (Thomas and Nisbet, 2004). The additional roughness created by a complete cover of woodland along a 2.2 km reach of the River Cary in Somerset was predicted to reduce water velocity by 50% or more and raise the flood level by up to 270 mm for a 1 in 100 year flood event. This increased the volume of flood storage by 71% and delayed the downstream progression of the flood peak by 140 minutes. These results were considered to be significant in terms of protecting downstream sites and providing more time for issuing flood warnings.

13. The main concern surrounds an enhanced risk of upstream flooding above

the floodplain woodland due to the backing-up of flood waters. In the case of the River Cary example, the flood level was raised by up to 180 mm over a distance of nearly 400 m upstream. Another issue is an increased risk of downstream flooding due to the wash-out of large woody debris blocking bridges and other critical structures in towns and cities.

The role of woodland design and management 14. The different ways that woodland can affect flood flows are greatly

influenced by design and management factors. Forest design determines species, age and structural diversity, as well as the balance of forest cover and open space. Since the water use effect is greatest for closed canopy conifer stands, the smaller that this component becomes the lesser the potential effect on flood flows. In terms of existing forests, the ongoing shift away from single aged plantations to more mixed species and aged stands with a significant component of broadleaves and open space, will act to ‘dilute’ the present water use effect on flood flows. This is despite the greater length of edge between young and old stands within a mixed-aged forest, which enhances local turbulence and thus interception loss. Research suggests that the edge effect is limited to a very narrow band (<20 m from the stand edge) and is therefore only significant for individual stands or woodlands that are less than 1 ha in area (Neal et al. 1991). In contrast, efforts to transform conifer stands into continuous cover crops could be expected to reverse the dilution effect of mixed aged woodlands by maintaining the presence of a fully intercepting canopy.

15. Forest design has less of an influence on the sponge effect but is a key

factor in determining the ability of floodplain woodland to slow down flood flows. To form an effective barrier, floodplain woodlands need to straddle most of the width of the floodplain, otherwise the effect will be negated by increased flows between or around woodland blocks. Relatively narrow, linear strips parallel to the river flow would have a minimal retaining effect.

4


Location, shape, size, age and species choice all influence the flood attenuation effect.

16. Woodland management also exerts a marked impact on the ability of

woodlands to reduce flood flows. Ground cultivation and drainage has the opposite effect of tending to speed-up the removal of water from a site. This is greatest for deep ploughing and intensive drainage, which can increase the density of surface water channels by 60 times or more. Research at Coalburn in north England showed that such ground treatments can increase peak flows by 20-30% and decrease the time to peak by about one third (Robinson et al. 2003). However, cultivation treatments have greatly changed in the last 20 years, with the focus now on scarification and mounding rather than ploughing. The need for drains has also reduced with the shift in planting to better drained soils. For new native woodlands, very wet soils are either left unplanted or mounded and planted with a species appropriate for such conditions.

17. Felling is the most dramatic intervention with effects on both woodland

water use and run-off pathways. Clearfelling usually leaves a bare site with minimal water use apart from the interception loss associated with brash residues. The increase in run-off and therefore greater contribution to flood flows is likely to last for at least 10-15 years until the replanted trees close canopy once again. Timber harvesting and extraction, however, can have an even greater effect on flood generation. Poor practice such as the use of inappropriate machines and excessive loads can cause severe ground damage, leading to rapid run-off from compacted soil and along wheel ruts. Best practice guidance was introduced in the UK in the late 1980’s and 1990’s to prevent these problems and help protect forest soils and water. The guidelines apply to both public and private forests and together with a shift to alternative forms of felling and smaller sized clearfells, should help to preserve the forest sponge effect.

18. Forest roads are another important consideration. The extensive network

of roads and supporting extraction and other access tracks that permeate large managed forests, together with associated drains, represent a significant surface area for the collection of rain water and its rapid delivery to streams. Older forests that predate modern guidelines will have the largest effect due to less attention being given to drainage design and preventing road drains flowing directly into natural watercourses. As with clearfelling, this factor can act against the flow reduction benefit resulting from the water use and sponge effects of the wider forest area.

The importance of scale 19. Scale is a key issue when extrapolating the effects of forests and

woodland to the level of a larger catchment. Obviously, as the proportion of the area occupied by a forest declines, its ‘signature’ will be progressively diluted by that of the non-forest land cover. This is especially relevant when considering flood alleviation, with most serious flooding problems arising well down the catchment of major river systems. At this

5


scale, forest cover often forms a relatively small proportion of the total land area, limiting the potential to contribute to flood defence. The diverse and mixed nature of the land cover is a key factor in the UK.

20. Scale appears to have less of an influence on the impact of floodplain

woodland. The significant effect on flood storage and timing that was predicted by the hydraulic modelling study on the River Cary was achieved by a relatively small area of floodplain woodland, covering less than 2% of the total catchment area of 82 km2. It is possible that the same barrier effect could have been produced by an even shorter reach of woodland, provided that it straddled the full width of the floodplain. Opportunities for creating a continuous area of woodland across the floodplain will usually be greatest in the middle and upper reaches of river systems, where housing and other forms of habitation pose less of a constraint. The narrow nature of headwater floodplains and high water velocities would require extended lengths of floodplain/riparian woodland to achieve a significant reduction in peak flows.

21. Modelling work suggests that it should be possible to exert a significant

effect on flood flows within large river systems by establishing a series of floodplain woodlands along a major river channel or across several main tributaries (Thomas and Nisbet, 2004). However, woodland location is an important consideration since planting provides an opportunity to desynchronise the flood flow contribution from individual tributary catchments. This could have both positive and negative effects depending on the overall timing and mix of flows within a large river system. A detailed analysis of the hydrographs of each tributary would be required to identify where the restoration of floodplain woodland would exert the greatest benefit in terms of the main flood peak. Site location also needs to consider potential constraints such as the presence of local buildings and transport links that could be affected by the backing-up of floodwaters upstream of any floodplain woodland.

Evidence base in support of woodland controlling flood flows 22. The impact of forestry on flood flows has been the subject of much

national and international research. Earlier hydrological studies in the UK found little evidence of a significant forest effect either at the headwater or at the large catchment scale. For example, an analysis of 35 years of flood flow records from moorland and forest research catchments at Plynlimon in mid-Wales found that upland floods in excess of the mean annual flood were scarcely affected by land use. A later study of the impact of extensive forest clearfelling in the same catchments also failed to find a significant change in peak flows (Robinson and Dupeyrat, 2003). The Natural Environmental Research Council’s Flood Studies Report of 1975 concluded from regional flood studies in Britain that the area of forest was not a significant factor in statistical relationships used for flood prediction. This was supported by McCulloch and Robinson’s (1993) review of the history of forest hydrology, which found that forests may reduce small floods but, generally, not extreme events.

6


23. Other studies have observed that forestry can have a significant effect on

flood flows at the small catchment scale but not within large basins. This was the conclusion of a major pan-European study by Robinson et al. (2003) involving hydrological data from 28 research catchments spanning a wide range of forest types, climate conditions and soil/geology. They found that forest growth could result in a 10-20% reduction in peak flows in headwater catchments, while forest drainage and felling could have the opposite effect. These effects could not be detected in larger catchments, leading them to suggest that forestry has probably a relatively small role to play in managing regional or large-scale flood risk. Similarly, a major review of the impacts of rural land use and management by O’Connell et al. (2004) concluded that there was substantial evidence of effects on local flooding at the field and hillslope scale, but little sign of these changes propagating far downstream.

24. These findings are in line with recent assessments by the Food and

Agriculture Organisation (2005) and Calder and Ayward (2006). Both studies found that while forests around the world can play a role in ameliorating localised flooding, there is no evidence that they can prevent, or that their removal is a cause of large-scale major floods. The impact of forests on floods was considered to be limited to catchments <100 km2 in area.

25. The downstream progression of headwater effects within larger

catchments was examined by Archer (2003) in a study of the River Irthing catchment in north England. A comparison was made between the effects on peak flows recorded within the small 90% afforested headwater Coalburn catchment (1.5 km2) and the larger 19% afforested River Irthing catchment (335 km2), to which it drained. An analysis of the annual number and duration of peak flows pulses found that the significant increases recorded due to deep ploughing followed by subsequent decreases due to forest growth at Coalburn, were effectively lost at the scale of the larger Irthing catchment. This agrees with the work of Cornish (1993) in Australia, who found that forest hydrological effects were very difficult to discern when less than 20% of a catchment was affected.

26. The lack of evidence of a significant impact of forestry on flood flows at the

larger catchment scale may be partly due to the research focusing on conifer plantations, especially in the UK. It is possible that the contrasting effects of the mix of forest ages, species and open space, together with that of forestry management practices such as drainage and clearfelling, effectively cancel each other out. Semi-natural forests that are unaffected by these activities may offer greater scope for flood reduction, although in the case of broadleaved woodland this would be limited by its much lower water use. Unfortunately, few studies have been able to test this due to the small scale of such woodland in many countries and the reluctance to undertake sizeable felling treatments in view of the woodland’s high conservation value.

7


27. The same problem also applies to floodplain forests, with few

measurements available to properly quantify their impact in terms of flood alleviation. Work is now underway to start to address this gap and help test the positive results derived from hydraulic modelling studies (Nisbet et al. 2005). Some research has demonstrated the positive effects of riparian woodland and large woody debris dams in reducing peak flows but only for smaller events at the local scale (Linstead and Gurnell, 1999). Further work is also needed on this topic.

28. The ability of woodland to reduce flood generation, at least within

headwater catchments, also has potential benefits for water quality. Rapid surface run-off is usually associated with a greater risk of soil erosion and consequently increased pressure from the entry of sediment and chemical-bound pollutants such as pesticides and nutrients entering watercourses. Therefore forestry can provide a win-win solution by helping to tackle both local flooding and diffuse pollution issues.

Conclusions 29. Woodland offers a number of potential opportunities for flood control.

Research and experience indicates that those provided by the greater water use by trees and the forest sponge effect are largely restricted to the headwater or small catchment level. Modelling studies suggest that floodplain woodland offers the main way of ameliorating extreme flood events at the large catchment scale, although results remain to be tested in practice. Overall, there appears to be significant scope for using woodland to help reduce flood risk, as well as to provide a wide range of other environmental, social and economic benefits. However, in order to achieve these, woodland needs to be better integrated with agriculture and other land uses as part of a whole-catchment approach to sustainable flood management.

References Archer, D. (2003) Scale effects on the hydrological impact of afforestation and drainage using indices of flow variability. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 7(3): 325-338. Bird, S.B; Emmett, B.A; Sinclair, F.L; Stevens, P. A; Reynolds, A.; Nicholson, S. & Jones, T. (2003) PONTBREN: Effects of tree planting on agricultural soils and their functions. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Bangor, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd. Calder, I.R. (1990) Evaporation in the Uplands. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. 148pp.

8


Calder, I. R. & Aylward, B. (2006) Forests and Floods: Moving to an evidence-based approach to watershed and integrated flood management. Water International, 31(1): 87-99. Calder, I.R., Reid, I., Nisbet, T. and Green, J. C. (2003) Impact of lowland forests in England on water resources. Water Resources Research, 39: 1319 - 1328. Cornish, P.M. (1993) The effects of logging and forest regeneration on water yields in a moist eucalypt forest in New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 150: 301-322. Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (2005) Making space for water: Taking forward a new Government strategy for flood management. Defra Publications, London. Food and Agriculture Organisation (2005) Forests and floods: Drowning in fiction or thriving on facts. RAP Publication 2005/03, Forest Perspectives 2. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. Hulme, M; Jenkins, G.J; Lu, X; Turnpenny, J.R; Mitchell, T.D; Jones, R.G; Lowe, J; Murphy, J.M; Hassell, D; Boorman, P; McDonald, R. & Hill, S. (2002) Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report. Tyndall Centre, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 120pp. Linstead, C. & Gurnell, A.M. (1999) Large woody debris in British headwater rivers: physical habitat role and management guide. Environment Agency R&D Technical Report W185. Environment Agency, Bristol. McCulloch, J.S.G. & Robinson, M. (1993) History of forest hydrology. Journal of Hydrology, 150: 189-216. Neal, C., Robson, A.J., Hall, R.L., Ryland, G., Conway, T. & Neal, M. (1991) Hydrological impacts of hardwood plantation in lowland Britain: preliminary findings on interception at a forest edge. Journal of Hydrology, 127: 349-365. Nisbet, T. (2005) Water use by trees. Forestry Commission Information Note 65. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, pp. 1-8. Nisbet, T. (2006) Interactions between floodplain woodland and the freshwater environment. Forest Research Annual Report 2004-5. Forest Research, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey. O’Connell, P.E; Beven, K.J; Carney, J.N; Clements, R.O; Ewen, J; Fowler, H; Harris, G.L; Hollis, J; Morris, J; O’Donnell, G.M; Packman, J.C; Parkin, A; Quinn, P.F; Rose, S.C; Shepherd, M & Tellier, S. (2004)

9


Project FD2114: Review of impacts of rural land use and management on flood generation. Defra R&D Technical Report FD2114. Defra, London. Robinson, M; Cognard-Plancq, A.L; Cosandey, C; David, J; Durand, P; Fuhrer, H.W; Hall, R; Hendriques, M.O; Marc, V; McCarthy, R; McDonnell, M; Martin, C; Nisbet, T; O’Dea, P. O; Rodgers, M. & Zollner, A. (2003) Studies of the impact of forests on peak flows and baseflows: a European perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 186: 85-97. Robinson, M; & Dupeyrat, A. (2003) Effects of commercial forest felling on streamflow regimes at Plynlimon, mid-Wales. Hydrological Processes 19: 1213-1226. Robinson, M., Moore, R.E., Nisbet, T.R. & Blackie, J.R. (1998) From moorland to forest: the Coalburn catchment experiment. Institute of Hydrology Report No. 133. Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford, UK, 64 pp. Thomas, H. & Nisbet, T. R. (2004) An assessment of the hydraulic impact of floodplain woodland. Forest Research, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey, 40 pp. Ward, R.C. & Robinson, M. (2000) Principles of Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, London and New York, 450pp.

10



SUBMISSION FROM HOMES FOR SCOTLAND Homes for Scotland is the representative body for the private home building industry in Scotland. Homes for Scotland represents the interests of over one hundred companies who provide 95 of every 100 homes built for sale in Scotland and we have a rapidly expanding membership of professional and other service businesses engaged in our industry. We write in response to the recent call for evidence for the Flooding & Flood Management Inquiry. As the Inquiry considers wider interests with regard to flood management, issues which will benefit greatly from Local Authority and specialist input, we do not intend to respond directly to each question raised. However we take the view that the inquiry could benefit from some general observations from the Scottish house building industry, particularly with regard to the role of land-use management, the planning system and building regulations.

Scottish Government Commitment to Increase the Supply of Housing In Scotland The Scottish Government, in publishing ‘Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland’, has committed to the increase in supply of housing in Scotland. The supply of land available for housing is of course key to this objective and we look forward to working with the Scottish Government, Local Authorities and Registered Social landlords to develop new strategies to increase the supply of land to meet targets. Achievement of the production of at least 35,000 homes per annum will require not only increased efficiency but new ways of thinking with regard to land supply and blockages to development. It is crucial that this is borne in mind throughout the Flooding & Flood Management Inquiry. Land Supply in Scotland Land Supply Issues The Government’s target to increase housing construction to 35000 p.a. + from its current level of 25000 by 2015 will have implications for the planning system, including the need for additional land. Assessing this new need for land is extremely difficult, and a number of factors will come into play. The new system of development plans, including the National Planning Framework and city-region strategic plans, will be the key tool for allocating additional land to meet higher production. Land allocations at present are set and controlled by the current set of extant Structure Plans; it is difficult for any


planning authority to substantially increase land allocations without altering or reviewing these extant Plans. The current land supply will therefore be the source of any increased output for the next few years, since the new city-region plans will not be in place until 2010/11 and local development plans, which will allocate sites in detail, will not follow until 2012 or thereby. It is possible, however, for planning authorities to grant planning consent for additional land should shortfalls arise in the interim. The increased build rates will probably be focussed on the areas of highest market demand – for instance Lothians, Stirling/Falkirk, Perthshire, Fife, Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, and parts of Highland and the outer Glasgow conurbation. In many of these areas, there is already a substantial reliance on windfall and brownfield sites to meet requirements. Therefore it is likely that, to meet additional construction, a higher proportion of Greenfield sites will be needed in future. Against that, authorities such as Edinburgh assert that they have planning consents for housing which are not being implemented, and that faster implementation of consents could increase house building rates substantially. Homes for Scotland considers this to be simplistic. Firstly, it disregards the reality that a planning consent is only the first of many consents and agreements required before construction can commence. The processes involved are becoming longer and slower, so that faster implementation is rarely feasible. Secondly, the consents in train are predominantly for similar types of development to that being built. The market in cities for higher-density development has slowed, so it is unlikely for market reasons that there will be accelerated construction arising from current planning consents. Increased output would depend on there being land and planning consents for housing aimed at different parts of the market, and this is not happening in places such as Edinburgh. Planning authorities are inclined to take an over-optimistic view of the available housing land supply. Analysis by Homes for Scotland, and more recently by Turley Associates for the Scottish Government, suggests that 20 – 30% of the assumed effective housing land supply at any given date will either fail to come forward or will be significantly delayed. Infrastructure and physical constraints are often factors in these delays, as well as marketing issues. In that respect, planning authorities should be making much more use of SEPA’s flood risk mapping to assess whether parts of their housing land supply are constrained by flood risk. Homes for Scotland calculates that, to reach 35000 houses p.a. by 2015, a year on year increase in output of 5% is needed. On the basis that the new generation of strategic and local plans is unlikely to affect land allocations before 2010 – 12, it is only the later years of this increased output which may


require new land not already in plans to accommodate construction. Some extant Structure Plans already provide for development to 2015 or beyond, others extend to 2010 and are being reviewed at present. Therefore, taking the period from 2011 onwards, there is a need in some areas to allocate new land from 2010, and in all areas a need to consider how to provide land to meet the increased construction targets. Homes for Scotland estimates that the total build required 2011 – 2015 to meet the Government target will be c. 160000, of which c. 40000 are over and above what would have been built on the current production of c.25000 p.a. It is impossible without extensive research to say how much of this requirement can be accommodated on existing identified land. Using a conservative estimate that, of the 160000 sites required beyond 2011, half will require to be identified in new plans, then the question is how much of that needs to be new greenfield. Brownfield and windfall will always account for a proportion, therefore it might be reasonable to assume that additional greenfield land for c.30000 new houses will need to be identified by 2015. At typical gross development densities for greenfield sites, that equates to at least 750 hectares of new land. While the above analysis is illustrative in nature it is clear that a substantial national exercise would be necessary to assess areas free from flood risk. We support current planning policy which excludes development of greenfield sites on the functional flood plain. However unprotected brownfield land will have to be utilised for future housing development and suitable methods of safeguarding it from flood risk will have to be demonstrated and provided without detriment to existing communities. To do otherwise would be to write off substantial parts of our existing communities which have been constructed on functional flood plains. SEPA as Statutory Consultee: The Planning System and Flood Risk Assessment SEPA’s role in flood risk assessment has changed following the publication of Scotland’s National Flooding Framework in 2003 when at that time its concerns in a future enhanced role were those of exposure to increased liability and having sufficient resource. Subsequent experience by our member companies and their consultants of working to SPP7 ‘Planning and Flooding’ and PAN 69 ‘Planning and Building Standards Advice on Flooding’ published in 2004, followed more recently by the introduction of 2nd generation Flood Maps, have confirmed these early concerns leading in many cases to inordinate delay by SEPA in responding to planning enquiries and in planning consultation response. This conclusion was reached following a number of reports from members of poor service from SEPA which, following a complaint to the Chief Executive, has recently resulted in dialogue between SEPA and Homes for Scotland at a senior level. Examples of poor service across SEPA area offices in hydrology and planning were:-

• Refusal to hold preliminary discussions


• Inadequate data, inconsistency in data provision and reporting

requirements and form of assessment • Lack of detailed guidance • Misinterpretation of flood map use (literal as against their intended

strategic use to indicate where flood risk is likely to be an issue) • Delays in communicating and, on occasion, complete failure to

communicate in planning applications This inefficiency by SEPA in engaging in the planning process has led to not just unnecessary delay and expense incurred by member companies but a complete sense of frustration in ensuring a balanced approach in assessing individual sites. Without change for the better there will be no confidence from developers or their consultants in SEPA taking on more flood risk assessment responsibility in future legislative change. Notwithstanding the current SEPA/Homes for Scotland engagement, the Committee is urged to investigate SEPA’s record in flood risk assessment in the planning system with a view to restoring confidence in SEPA to properly fulfill their duties and responsibilities in assessing development sites at risk from flooding. Scottish Planning Policy 7 (SPP7) The briefing note questions the need to make changes to the legislative framework surrounding and flood management. Our member companies are concerned with the current use of SPP7, in particular with ambiguity in interpretation, evident loopholes and the ‘cherry picking’ application by many authorities. Homes for Scotland would therefore welcome a review of the planning policy and consideration to new forms of legal framework to ensure consistent application of guidelines in Scotland. Building Regulations and Engineering Solutions Any further changes in building regulations where development is permitted in areas at risk of flooding will require careful assessment in relation to sustainable building and with due regard to the use of flood resilient materials, safe installation of services and engineering solutions based on best practice from abroad.



SUBMISSION FROM THE MACAULAY INSTITUTE Question 1 – What is the potential impact of climate change on the frequency and severity of all types of flooding in Scotland? The Macaulay Institute is the UK's premier land use research centre with a staff of 300. The Institute conducts independent research in environmental and social science, with a focus on interdisciplinary research. Research staff come from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds and include environmental and social scientists, economic experts and policy analysts. The Institute has combined it’s expertise from the socio-economics research group, catchment management group and soils group in responding to this Inquiry. We believe that climate change will have a significant impact on the frequency and severity of flooding in Scotland, and that flooding will become less predictable. The impact will be both direct and indirect. Direct effects include changes in rainfall and intensity, sea-level rise and storm activity. Indirect effects include changes in snow-melt and snow accumulation, evaporation rates, soil moisture and vegetation. These indirect effects are likely to be of great importance, but are not often included within current assessments, and they may themselves be further affected by changes in land use or land management. Research shows that climate change is causing the risk of winter flooding to increase because of increased winter rainfall and less storage as snow on mountains. Work in progress at the Institute is analysing the long term flow record (1929 to present) from the River Dee, Aberdeenshire. Initial results suggest that there is an increase in Spring flows and at the same time the river is more responsive to precipitation events. This is being interpreted as more precipitation falling as rain (rather than snow) and running off to the rivers rather than accumulating as a seasonal snowpack melting slowly over the spring and early summer. The magnitude of this increased risk and the implications for flood risk management require further research. Uncertainties in terms of direct and indirect effects makes predicting future flooding difficult. Any effective flood management strategy needs to recognise these uncertainties and that historical patterns of flooding are unlikely to be reliable indicators of the future. A more robust risk-based strategy is therefore needed for flood management. This requires considerably more work on risk assessment, risk perception and risk awareness. For example, although the 2002 report on 'Climate Change: Flood Occurrences', used 4 different emissions scenarios, it did not include scientific uncertainty through variations in response of the climate, hydrological and ocean systems. Hence, this assessment should be reappraised as early as possible, and particularly in the context of the arrival of the UKCIP08 Climate Change Scenarios in 2008. This would allow a more strategic flood risk assessment, including a more


explicit statement of the probability of future flooding and demarcation of risk areas. Our research shows that the public perceive that flooding will be more frequent and severe in future, but that they do not consider they are responsible for mitigating flood impacts, or that they know what to do about it. Question 2 – What changes are needed to the existing legislation? Much of the existing flood legislation is outdated and presents authorities with conflicting incentives which discourage joined up catchment-based (river basin) thinking.

Research from the Macaulay Institute highlights many of these problems (Gonzalez et al, under review). For example, the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 and Flood Prevention and the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1997 are two of the main legislative instruments regulating flood risk management in Scotland. Under this legislation some flood prevention responsibility is placed on local authorities, but their powers and responsibilities are restricted to assessing and managing the risk of flooding on non-agricultural land. This prevents a catchment wide approach. Another barrier to more joined up flood risk management can be found in the system of funding mechanisms. Current policy and legislation does not promote co-ordination of rural funds with funds which finance downstream ‘harder defences’ in the form of Flood Prevention Schemes (FPS). Current rules also limit the extent of operations local authorities are permitted to carry out which are not considered to be a FPS. These are limited to maintenance of watercourses. The FPS approval criteria do not allow for the inclusion of “soft engineering” measures more in line with a sustainable flood management approach. In order for a joined up catchment based approach to flood risk management to work, legislation on flooding needs to tie-in with agricultural and environmental legislation, planning legislation and policy implementing the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Formal legislation needs to be complemented by informal and voluntary measures. Question 3 – Who should be responsible for flood management and how should it be funded? We are less concerned about who is responsible for flooding and more concerned that it is done appropriately and includes all relevant areas such as rural land use, rural and urban planning, WFD, and practices of commercial organisations such as those responsible for dams and water supplies, sewers and drains.


However, current dispersed responsibility leads to problems. An issue identified in the 3 Dee Vision project run by the Macaulay Institute was the difficulties of joined up working between organisations (Blackstock & Carter, 2007). The principal issues centred on: 1. Differences in the objectives of individual organisation which led to considerable effort being expended in trying to reach a consensus on approach and outcome; 2. The decision making process being very resource intensive and lengthy due to the need for referral and repeat iterations between organisations represented to ensure each organisation could agree to the action. This could be improved by delegated authority/ more appropriate representation on the decision making group; 3. The strong dependence on individual personalities in promoting or hindering the process. Other research from the Institute has highlighted problems of institutional culture (such as entrenched views on the value of hard engineering and lack of a history of co-operation between landowners) and lack of co-ordination between organisations, as problematic for joined-up catchment based flood risk management (Gonzalez et al, under review; Davies et al, 2004). We believe there are a number of possible options related to who should be responsible for flood management. First, SEPA are the responsible authority for implementation of the WFD and including responsibility for flood management within their remit would encourage a tie-in between the WFD, and the EU Floods Directive, and national policy on flooding. Lessons could be learnt from implementation of the WFD and duplication of effort could be avoided. River basin management groups formulated for WFD could be utilised in flood management. However, our research shows that SEPA would have to overcome a number of challenges: they are regulators and may have difficult relationships with key land use managers; they are not involved in planning and land use – both key to flood risk management; SEPA also has an institutional history of water management that may inhibit innovative and integrated thinking that is vital for future flood risk management. Secondly, local authorities currently have some responsibility for flood management, but are constrained by current legislation, as discussed above. LAs are able to be more joined up across areas such as planning, land use and roads etc. However, water and floods do not respect local authority boundaries, and this would have to be addressed if LAs were to have responsibility for flood management overall. Third, in June 2007 the Scottish Government announced a review of major bodies delivering rural and environmental services, with a view to a lighter touch, and a single organisation delivering all relevant activities. Flood risk management should be included in the remit of the ongoing review.


A final option would be to set up a new body which could address flood risk across all geographic and thematic areas. Previous work on WFD implementation (Kirk et al., 2007) work on 3 Dee Vision Project (Blackstock and Carter, 2006) and ongoing evaluation of the River Basin Management Planning Process throughout Scotland (Blackstock, 2007) suggest that understanding the institutional arrangements, opportunities and barriers, are essential in designing suitable policies and plans. For example, voluntary and cooperative environmental measures must be seen to be efficient, effective, legitimate and equitable. Collaborative processes, which will be essential for good flood risk management, need to consider the roles responsibilities and remits of all relevant organisations. Delivery of policy in this area is fundamentally about sustaining partnerships and ensuring ongoing actions. Delivery is partly dependent on funding mechanisms but also encompasses issues such as how to go about public and stakeholder engagement; perceptions of power, trust and responsibility; and evaluating options and monitoring implementation. Funding is a difficult issue. Currently funding sources available are through insurance, council tax, central government grants, agri-environment payments, rural development plan, and licenses (used by SEPA to fund WFD work). A combination of these funding avenues is likely to be needed together with private sources of funding through insurers and house builders. To our knowledge there has been no research on the effectiveness or public attitude towards these funding sources with respect to flooding, and such an assessment is vital Question 4 – What role should sustainable flood management play in mitigating the effects of flooding? We recognise that there are different approaches to flood management, most notably approaches which attempt to prevent damaging flood events and approaches which try to protect people and property from flood events. Sustainable flood management should comprise both and include hard flood defences (where necessary), soft engineering, land management measures, as well as public awareness activities such as flood warnings and education. We would argue that it is vital to look beyond hard engineering alone. A joined up catchment based approach where the use of a range of possible approaches is considered is essential. Clearly, what measures should be implemented will be location specific. Each catchment needs to be assessed holistically. Rural and urban solutions will differ and the status quo will be important in determining what can and should be done. However, the science of predicting flood events, and the impact of different land management practices on those events is not yet robust enough to say with certainty how effective land use management strategies will be. Despite this, there is some research to suggest that changing land management practices can help reduce the frequency and impact of small to


medium floods, but their effectiveness reduce as floods increase. From a national perspective one of the interesting weather related patterns is that although winter precipitation in the west of Scotland has significantly increased in recent decades, this is not mirrored by the data on river flows, hinting at the strategic importance of land use management. Research carried out at the Macaulay Institute shows that experts in flood management believe that soft engineering measures, such as the creation of wetlands, planting trees and restoring upland bogs, can have a beneficial role in reducing flood risk (Kenyon, in preparation). Further, this research shows that such soft techniques are likely to have additional benefits such as improving water quality, creating wildlife habitats and biodiversity benefits, and offering recreational and tourism benefits. An associated research project shows that members of the public in focus groups considered soft measures preferable to hard measures when all economic, environmental and social costs and benefits were considered and compared (Kenyon, 2007). Question 5 – What role can land-use management, the planning system and building regulations play in mitigating the effects of flooding? We believe that the key to flood risk management is joined up catchment based thinking so that rural land use, rural and urban planning and building regulations are all complementary and work together to reduce flood risk. In terms of land use management, land drainage (which has historically been undertaken to improve soil conditions for agriculture and forestry) has tended to exacerbate flood peaks by increasing rates of runoff. By blocking and removing drains and ditches (particularly in marginal upland agricultural areas) there is a potential to mitigate this effect. Work at the Macaulay also shows how important soil is to flooding. Degraded soils increase the risk of flooding as their ability to absorb and store water is reduced. Soils may have been damaged through compaction, erosion and loss of organic matter, but they can in some circumstances be repaired quite readily benefiting both agriculture and flood management. Retaining soil is also important to flood management. Soil erosion can make cultivation difficult and associated siltation can lead to blockage of watercourses. Research shows that land management measures such as the use of buffer strips can trap sediment and reduce the risk of blockage to streams and ditches. Each year in Scotland an area of land the size of Dunfermline is lost forever due to soil sealing (Towers et al, 2006). Soil that is built on (including road networks) will have a much reduced capacity to absorb water leading to more rapid runoff and enhanced flooding risk. Adaptation to flood events should also be considered, since floods cannot (and should not) be prevented. Adaptation might involve flood proofing buildings by designing car parks/garages on the group floor, raising electrical


sockets in buildings, using flood resistant materials. Greater use of permeable materials, such as on car parks, in urban areas might also be considered. Question 6 – Are there any improvements needed to existing flood warning systems? We believe there are at least two issues pertaining to flood warning: the warning itself; and people’s behaviour once a warning has been received. In terms of flood warnings, SEPA might consider new and emerging technologies such as text messaging, information and communication technology. For example, SEPA is using solar powered, electronic signs at beach locations to warn about bathing water quality, and image sharing websites such as FLICKR have been used to good effect when disseminating information about recent wildfires in California. Such innovations may be relevant and could be adapted to flood warning. In terms of people’s behaviour, it appears that increased awareness of the current flood warning systems is needed, so that there is greater use and uptake of existing flood warnings. Evidence shows that those who have been flooded before are likely to be aware of warning systems and what to do once they receive a warning. Those who have not been flooded before are more likely to be ignorant of flood warning systems, and will not have considered what action to take in the event of a flood. Reaching this group of people who are at risk of flooding, but have not been flooded before should be considered a priority. People are likely to take in a message if they think it relevant to them and if they believe the content. However, in order to act on this message, they have to also perceive the following: that the issue is serious; it is immediate; they have a responsibility to do something themselves; they are able to do something about it; and they think that their action will actually make a difference (Blackstock et al, 2007). Question 7 – How effective are the responses to flooding events? The effectiveness of response to flood events might be enhanced if lessons are learnt from the successes and failures of past flood events. Whilst we know that “lessons learnt” type reports are prepared following major floods, we are unsure that the reports and lessons get back to the right people so that action might be taken to reduce flood impact in future. Other issues we consider important. There are a number of issues that we believe are important in flood management, that have not been raised in response to the questions posed by the Inquiry. 1. Socio-economic and environmental justice issues are key to flood

management. Research shows that vulnerable members of society suffer from the tangible and intangible costs of flooding more than other members of society.


2. Whilst flood events are the focus of the Inquiry, associated events may be

equally important in terms of impact and disruption. There are recent examples of landslides, mudslides and land instability in Scotland, that might be considered alongside flooding.

References Blackstock K.L and Carter C. E., (2007) Operationalising sustainability science for a sustainability directive? Reflecting on three pilot projects The Geographical Journal, Vol. 173, No. 4. Blackstock K.L., (2007) Collaborative evaluation of partnership working in Scotland. Paper given at the European Society for Rural Sociology, Wagingenen, Netherlands, 20-24th August, 2007. Blackstock K.L., Dwyer J, Ingram J et al., (2007) Negotiating Change: the importance of knowledge networks in mitigating diffuse pollution. Paper given at the CAIWA conference, Basel, 11-15th November 2007. Davies, B.B., Blackstock, K., Brown, K. and Shannon, P. (2004) Challenges in creating local agri-environmental cooperation action amongst farmers and other stakeholders. SEERAD Final Report, Reference MLU/927/03. Gonzalez, J., W. Kenyon and J. Dunglinson (submitted August 2007) Institutional analysis of flood risk management: A Scottish case study, Journal of Environmental Management. Kenyon, W. (2007) Evaluating flood risk management options in Scotland: A participant led multi-criteria approach. Ecological Economics, 64, 70-81. Kenyon W. (2007) The impact of flood risk management techniques in rural areas: Results of a experts Delphi study, In preparation.

Kirk E, Reeves A, Blackstock K, (2007) Path dependency and the implementation of environmental regulation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 25(2) 250 – 268

Towers, W., I.C. Grieve, G. Hudson, C.D. Campbell, A.Lilly, D.A. Davidson, J.R. Bacon, S.J. Langan and D.W. Hopkins (2006) Scotland’s Soil Resource – Current state and threats, Environmental Research Report 2006/01, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive.



SUBMISSION FROM THE ROYAL TOWN PLANNING INSTITUTE

The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation as we consider that the planning system has a key role to play at national, city-region and local levels in addressing Scotland’s current and future vulnerability to flooding. The RTPI is the UK body chartered to represent the planning profession and offers these comments from the point of view of a diverse and policy neutral professional body committed to supporting devolved government in Scotland. The Institute has approximately 2000 members in Scotland working across all sectors of central government, local government, government agencies, the voluntary sector, private consultancy, the development industry and academia. Since devolution, the Institute has empowered its RTPI in Scotland Office, together with its Scottish Executive Committee, with the responsibility for working with government and public bodies generally for the improvement of the planning system in Scotland. This is in accordance with its charter obligation to work for the public interest. Our comments are set out below under the headings of the questions posed in the consultation paper. The Institute does not wish to respond to questions regarding flood warning systems or responses to flooding events.

What is the potential impact of climate change on the frequency and severity of all types of flooding in Scotland?

A number of recent reports such as the Stern Review, work by the UK Climate Impacts Programme, and more specific reports on Scotland such as ‘Foresight Future Flooding’ have reviewed the scientific evidence for climate change and have identified risks and economic impacts and the need for action. The best regional estimates for the next 70 – 100 years suggest higher rainfall totals, increased storminess, and more intense rain concentrated on fewer days, higher consequent peak river flows, and sea level rise of 30 – 60 cms. These aspects of climate change have implications for all types of flooding across Scotland. There are particular concerns for increased storminess leading to pluvial flooding resulting form rainfall generated overland flows. It will be important to identify vulnerable areas and to improve understanding of the capacity of existing drainage infrastructure in urban areas. Regular, updated national guidance will be needed on the impacts of climate change and on the implications for policy and practice.

What changes are needed to the existing legislation?

The primary flood legislation is now 46 years old and would benefit from streamlining amendment or replacement particularly in view of the specific requirements of the EU Directive on Flooding. Other factors which support a review of legislation include changing experience in practice, increased emphasis on adaptation and mitigation, changes in related legislation


regarding planning and environmental issues, the need to speed up decision making processes and to integrate statutory flood management procedures with planning procedures and Controlled Activity Regulations wherever possible, and the need to clarify responsibilities and to address funding issues including combined funding mechanisms.

The Flooding Directive will require national legislation for flood risk management plans to be drawn up by 2015. These will run alongside the second round of River Basin Management Plans, following on from the initial 2009 -2015 round. Further changes to regulations must address risk reduction and the operational implementation of WEWS should be linked with the Flooding Directive to produce a programme for flood risk reduction. Given the requirement under the Floods Directive, it is hoped that the opportunity will be taken to permit responsible authorities to integrate flood management with other land and water management objectives.

Some improvements could be addressed under existing legislation; these include improvements to information availability and monitoring systems; raising awareness of flood hazards; guidance and co-ordination of activities including stakeholder engagement in flood management. There is a need to encourage partnership working and to dovetail actions by responsible authorities in both the built and landward areas. SEPA and SNIFFER have important roles to play in co-ordinating information and in disseminating best practice.

Who should be responsible for flood management and how should it be funded?

Flood management requires a co-ordinated approach across sectors at all levels. However, a single national body is needed to act as the strategic authority and to act as the ‘competent authority’ under the Directive. It would appear appropriate for SEPA to undertake this role. However, given the wide range of bodies involved in work to address flooding issues, it would be useful to have national advisory group similar to the former Flood Issues Advisory Committee. The Scottish Government should support strategic partnerships in flooding issues working with local authorities and other bodies. This work should be closely related to that of Strategic Development Planning Authorities and the Area Advisory Groups formed under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act. Primary responsibility for implementation of specific flood management measures and schemes should rest with local authorities and be closely associated with land use planning responsibilities.

What role should sustainable flood management play in mitigating the effects of flooding?

Sustainable flood management focusing more on avoidance and adaptation to the flood threat and incorporating policies of managed retreat should play a key role in mitigating the effects of flooding wherever possible. Guidance should build on the earlier work of the Flood Issues Advisory Group.


What role can land-use management, the planning system and building regulations play in mitigating the effects of flooding?

The Institute supports the view that land use management, the planning system and building regulations all have important roles to play in mitigating the effects of flooding. Greater recognition of the interaction between these roles is important. There is a strong case for flood risk mitigation through sustainable land use practices in upper and middle catchment areas for the benefit of those areas downstream. This requires spatial co-operation and co-ordination across a number of stakeholder groups and the co-ordination of funding streams to allow catchment wide land management measures.

The spatial planning system is fundamental to sustainable flood management, in exercising control over development in flood plain areas and in ensuring that planning decisions do not exacerbate problems elsewhere. At the national level, SPP7 contains strong guidance aimed at preventing further development on land which is at significant risk of flooding from all sources, or which would materially increase the probability of flooding elsewhere. The Institute supports this policy position, which seeks to work with natural systems wherever possible. The risk of flooding should also be addressed through the National Planning Framework with close links established to Catchment Management and River Basin Management Strategies.

At the strategic level consideration of the possibilities afforded by more compact cities and the multi functional role of ‘green infrastructure’ in safeguarding communities and infrastructure as well as providing for other objectives such as health and natural heritage should be recognised. The incorporation of flooding issues into strategic environmental assessment of policies plans and programmes at strategic and local levels should be based on robust and easily available data and monitoring and linked to work on the ameliorisation of social impacts of flooding.

With regard to building regulations, the Institute would support the introduction of measures to encourage increased resilience and resistance of buildings to flooding. Attention might also be given to protection of the historic environment and it is noted that Historic Scotland has developed advice about how to deal with particular aspects of building maintenance and the conservation of fabric and that specific guidance on the protection of historic heritage and archaeological fabric might be appropriate.



SUBMISSION FROM SCOTTISH BUILDING STANDARDS AGENCY

The Scottish Building Standards Agency (SBSA) was set up on 21 June 2004 as an executive agency of the Scottish Government and for the purpose of implementing the duties of the Scottish Ministers as set out in the Building (Scotland) Act 2003. This Act gave Ministers the power to make building regulations for the purposes of securing the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in and about buildings and others who may be affected by buildings or matters connected with buildings, furthering the conservation of fuel and power and to further the achievement of sustainable development. A key function of the SBSA is to prepare the building regulations and write guidance on how to meet the regulations. The SBSA welcomes the opportunity to submit this evidence based on the following question as set out in the remit of the inquiry.

What role can land-use management, the planning system and building regulations play in mitigating the effects of flooding?

Through the Planning System, planning authorities should give consideration to flood risk from any source so that development on land that has a significant probability of being affected by flooding should generally be prevented. The Planning system also permits the recognition of proposals that use water resistant materials or construction methods as material planning considerations allowing the attachment of conditions to a grant of planning permission. The Building Standards system whilst complementing the planning system also recognises that, given the general acceptance that flooding cannot entirely be prevented, then it is inevitable that buildings will be constructed on sites where some form of flooding could occur. Taking this into account the building regulations through mandatory standard 3.3 ‘Flooding and Ground Water’ requires that ‘every building must be designed and constructed in such a way that there will not be a threat to the building or the health of the occupants as a result of flooding and the accumulation of ground water’. Meeting this mandatory standard is a statutory requirement and as all the standards are set out as functional requirements that buildings should achieve then this leaves the method or means of compliance with designers. This system allows more innovation and flexibility with design and materials and the promotion of sustainable development. Technical guidance on the normal methods of compliance is also provided for use where alternative solutions are not intended. In relation to flooding, the technical guidance that supports mandatory standard 3.3 calls for an initial appraisal of all proposed building sites to ascertain the risk of flooding and also what effects the development would have on adjoining ground. Where there is some risk of flooding identified then further guidance is given on the consideration and selection of suitable construction methods and materials that will permit the design in of suitable measures to reduce or mitigate the risk of flood damage to buildings caused by floods. The technical guidance also refers to


publications which not only provides guidance on best use of materials but also advice on possible methods of delaying ingress of flood water into buildings. The guidance to mandatory standard 3.3 also calls for the treatment of ground below and immediately adjoining buildings to prevent against the harmful effects of ground water or flood water on the building or its structure where this is liable to happen. Such treatment may include the drainage of ground water to increase the stability of the ground and avoid surface flooding. Flooding can have many causes and this is acknowledged within the building regulations by various mandatory standards and associated technical guidance that relate to flooding and / or the accumulation of ground water. In addition to mandatory standard 3.3 the following are other standards that can play a role in the mitigation of flooding and/or the protection of buildings. Standard 3.4:– Requires buildings to be designed and constructed in such a way that

the building or the occupants are not threatened by moisture penetration from the ground.

Standard 3.5 – Buildings must not be constructed over drains, including field drains

that are to remain active. The construction of buildings usually involves the disruption of natural drainage patterns to some degree and it is therefore impoprtant that any existing ground drainage remains active

Standard 3.6 – Although this standard is based on the provision of a surface water

drainage system for all buildings, the guidance does promote the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) as a means of managing surface water run-off. The guidance to this standard also outlines the benefits of rainwater harvesting which allows surface water runoff from dwellings or hard standing areas to be collected, processed, stored and distributed as a means of reducing the load on surface water drainage systems and surface water run-off that could lead to incidents of flooding.

The Scottish Building Standards Agency (SBSA) is currently working with a Building Standards Advisory Committee (BSAC) working party on updating and improving the guidance that supports both the flooding and surface water standards. Flood resilient construction guidance is under examined as is improved guidance on source control of surface water run—off. The outcomes from this working party’s deliberation will be subject to public consultation and should lead to the provision of improved guidance for designers when considering buildings that may be subject to any flood risk. Research plays an important role in assisting and informing any necessary changes to building standards or guidance and in relation to flooding the SBSA recently jointly funded the CIRIA report on ‘Improving the Flood Resilience of Buildings, Through Improved Materials Methods and Details’ and the development of this report as a flood mitigation guidance document and for and improving the flood resilience of constructed buildings.


The Scottish Building Regulations have an extremely important role to play in ensuring that any new buildings that could be subject to any assessed flood risk, are constructed in full compliance with mandatory standards that are intended to mitigate the threat of flooding to both the building and the occupants of the building.



SUBMISSION FROM THE FRESHWATER TASKFORCE OF THE

SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT LINK LINK Freshwater Task Force welcomes the opportunity to present written evidence to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for their Flooding and Flood Management Inquiry. The Freshwater Taskforce warmly welcomes the remit of this inquiry and we hope that the evidence we provide will be helpful in informing the future flooding policies. This written evidence focuses on key issues in relation to the new Flooding Bill and sustainable flood management; and the role of natural flood management in that process. It has been widely recognised that our current approach to flooding is piece-meal and very reactive, largely limited to flood warning and hard engineering. Most floods to date have resulted in the building of embankments and flood walls to keep water out from vulnerable homes and businesses. However, hard engineering can make the problem worse – by moving large amount of water downstream faster and causing flooding elsewhere. The situation is likely to get worse due to climate change. Scotland is predicted to get wetter and stormier, increasing the risk of all forms of flooding. It is therefore clear that a new approach to dealing with floods is needed. Freshwater Task Force members have therefore warmly welcomed the huge opportunity presented by the forthcoming Scottish Flooding Bill and are keen to constructively input into its development, through the Flooding inquiry, Flooding Bill Advisory Group and through a wider dialogue with Government and other stakeholders. The following organisations are members of the Freshwater Taskforce and support this submission: RSPB Scotland, WWF Scotland, Buglife, National Trust for Scotland, Scottish Wildlife Trust Context Scottish Government is committed to sustainable flood management and to introduce in Parliament a Bill on flooding in May 2008. LINK Freshwater Taskforce welcomes this commitment and sees this as an opportunity to make progress from the current fragmented approach to flooding towards a more sustainable, modern approach that works with, rather than against the natural processes. The EU Directive on the Management of Flood Risk (the Floods Directive) is part of the same family of European Directives as the Water Framework Directive (WFD) that Scotland transposed in 2003, through the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (WEWS Act). The Floods Directive is ready to transpose. It provides a good framework for the Scottish legislation.


Scotland led the way in its transposition of the WFD, legislating for the structures to enable meaningful participation and deliver Good Ecological Status, to safeguard the quality and health of Scotland’s precious water environment. The WEWS Act set out a good framework to build upon to deliver sustainable flood management. By enhancing the roles within the structures that already exist under the WEWS Act, Scotland is well placed to put in place smart, effective and efficient arrangements to plan for and manage flood risk. We therefore recommend, and throughout this document give support for our main 5 asks in relation to the new Flooding Bill:

• Review, streamline and where necessary amend the existing legislation on flooding

• Clarify and where necessary strengthen the responsibilities for

flood management and ensure better co-ordination between ‘responsible’ authorities

• Transpose the requirements of the EU Directive on the

Management of Flood Risk

• Ensure close links with river basin management planning under the WFD including public participation, with regional and national advisory flood groups

• Put in place a more flexible, integrated funding for hard and soft-

engineering measures linked with the delivery of catchment flood management plans.

1. What is the potential impact of climate change on the frequency and severity of all types of flooding in Scotland? A number of reports suggest that climate change will increase the risk of all types of flooding in Scotland. The UK Climate Impacts Programme1 (CIP) provides scenarios that predict how climate might change over time, and concludes that winters will become wetter, and summers drier, but the intensity and frequency of summer storms may increase. This could lead to an increase risk of urban and sewage flooding, as our drainage systems become overwhelmed by the volume of water entering it. A medium-emission climate change scenario predicts that a 1 in 100 chance flood in any year is expected to become a 1 in 70 chance flood in any year by the 2020s, and to a 1 in 40-60 chance flood in any year by the 2080s2. Therefore floods, which are currently considered ‘extreme’, will become more frequent in future.

1 UK CIP 2002 - Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, 2002 2 Foresight report, 2002


Rising sea levels coupled with the increased risk of storminess, is expected to place increased pressure on coastal defences, increasing the risk of coastal flooding, causing the loss of important estuarine and coastal habitats and damage to property. The updates to regional net sea-level change estimates for Great Britain suggest that sea levels in Scotland may rise between 0 cm (low emissions estimate) and 60 cm (high emissions estimate) by 20803. The loss of saltmarsh and mudflat now totals over 100 hectares a year in Britain4. These are key habitats for birds, invertebrates and fish, and many such areas in Scotland are internationally and nationally recognised for their importance for wildlife. It is therefore clear, that in facing these threads, we need to adapt to changing climate conditions in a sustainable way. The new Flooding Bill provides an opportunity to put in place structures and process that will be key in implementing sustainable flood management in Scotland. 2. What changes are needed to the existing legislation? The current approach to flooding is very reactive and piece-meal, largely limited to hard engineering and flood warning. The change towards sustainable flood management will require the review of all relevant legislation, including the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961, the Coast Protection Act 1949, and the Land Drainage Acts 1930 and 1958. There may also be a need to review and where necessary amend the provisions contained within the Scottish Planning Policies (SSP7 and PAN 69), the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 and Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968. The current approach to flooding is largely driven by the provisions of the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 - the ‘1961’ Act, which encourages a fragmented approach and hard engineering. The main purpose of the Act is to allow engineering works to be carried out for the defence of non-agricultural land against flooding. The ‘1961’ Act has been a major obstacle in implementing sustainable flood management on the ground, since it does not recognise the benefits of a catchment approach to assessing and managing flood risk, or the role of non-structural measures in flood mitigation. We recommend that the 1961 Act be repealed, whilst the provisions of the Act are reviewed to allow local authorities more flexibility in their approach to urban flood defence. Coast Protection Act 1949 sets out the legislative framework for the protection of the coastline against erosion from the sea. Local authorities have permissive powers to take appropriate measures for the protection of any land in their area. Sea level rise and increased storm surges are likely to place mounting pressure on existing structures, and the provisions of the Act should be reviewed to allow more flexible approaches to the management of coastal erosion, including coastal realignment. 3 Updates to regional net sea-level change estimates for Great Britain, August 2006, www.ukcip.org.uk 4 Seas of Change: The potential area for intertidal habitat creation around the coast of mainland Britain: Pilcher, Burston, Kindleysides and Davies, 2002

http://www.ukcip.org.uk/


Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1958 makes provision to approval of works to improve drainage of agricultural land to prevent erosion or flooding. Individual landowners also have legal duties to maintain / carry our drainage on their land, or cleansing and scouring of watercourses in accordance with the Land Drainage Act 1930. The schemes often involve a group of landowners and are carried out at a larger scale than individual holdings. Land currently under drainage, particularly in the uplands, may be largely abandoned through the influence of changing policies on food production. In the lowlands, it may also be identified as an area suitable for natural flood storage. It such cases, decisions need to be made about the best use of such land for public benefit. We understand that this may involve a loss of production on behalf of the landowner. We therefore recommend that a system of appropriate financial reward is put in place to compensate for the loss of any income to the farm, forest or estate business. Scottish Water manages discharge of surface water into SW owned drainage systems, maintains and expands water and sewerage systems, and addresses issues with regards to sewer flooding under the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 & Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968. Climate change predictions suggest that the intensity and frequency of summer storms will increase, leading to a higher risk of urban and sewage flooding. It may therefore be necessary to review the provisions of these Acts to allow increased capacity to deal with the effects of climate change on drainage systems. National planning policies, such as the Scottish Planning Policy on flooding (SPP7) have an important role in shaping development plans for a particular area. The relevant planning policies should be reviewed and where necessary amended to tackle the obligations that may arise from the new Flooding Bill, in particular the requirement to deliver sustainable flood management. 3. Who should be responsible for flood management and how should it be funded? Responsibilities for flooding are very fragmented, and do not allow for an integrated, catchment based approach. The main responsibility lies with individual landowner (farmers and home owners). Local authorities have duties and powers to address flooding on non-agricultural land and to maintain watercourses. Local Authorities are also responsible for the protection of coastline against erosion, and for development planning. SEPA has duties to control the impacts of engineering works through the Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR), operating a flood warning system, and providing advice to local authorities on flood risk. Scottish Water (SW) is responsible for the drainage of surface water, maintenance of sewerage infrastructure and addressing issues with regards to sewer flooding. SW is also responsible for the maintenance of publicly owned SUDS.


We believe that there is a need to clarify and where necessary strengthen the responsibilities of various organisations in flood management. This may be achieved by designating ‘responsible authorities’ for flood management, with clear remits and responsibilities. Responsible authorities will be obliged to contribute to the production of a flood plan, and to deliver towards the plan. The Bill should therefore provide for an integrated approach and better co-ordination between ‘responsible’ authorities. There is also a need to establish strong decision making structures to address flooding, nationally and regionally; and structures to enable the involvement of all relevant stakeholders. These structures should be linked with those established by the WFD legislation, the WEWS Act. We therefore propose:

o 8 regional advisory groups ‘FLAG5 +’ o A national advisory group for the decision-making and co-

ordination of roles

These should be tied in to the current structures in place under the WEWS Act in order to ensure smart working with the WFD processes but placing special emphasis on tackling the challenges of increased flooding threats. This will ensure that there is co-ordination with the WFD and the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). The legislation should deliver a requirement to establish structures that allow for decision-making and public participation. A detailed diagram of how such structures may work is given in the Annexes. An obligation to report annually to the Parliament (Annual Progress Report) should be introduced in the Bill. The EU Directive on the Management of Flood Risk introduces new requirements for Scotland, including: • Member States will by 2011 undertake a preliminary flood risk

assessment of their river basins and associated coastal zones, including an assessment of potential adverse consequences of future floods, floodplains as natural retention areas and long-term developments such as the impacts of climate change.

• Where real risks of flood damage exist, they must by 2013 develop flood hazard maps and flood risk maps, which show potential adverse consequences of flooding on people, infrastructure and the natural environment.

• By 2015, flood risk management plans (FRMPs) must be drawn up for these zones. These plans are to include measures to reduce the probability of flooding and its potential consequences. FRMPs will be required to take into account all relevant aspects of flood risk, and also take into account areas which have potential to retain water, such as natural floodplains, as well as the environmental objectives under the WFD, soil and water management, land use and spatial planning. There is a strong requirement to encourage public involvement of all interested parties in the production of FRMPs.

5 Flooding Liaison Advisory Groups set-up under Scottish planning policies


• The Directives requires member states to establish an appropriate

competent authority for flood risk management planning. • Finally, the Directive also requires appropriate steps to coordinate with

WFD and have regards to the environmental objectives of WFD.

We recommend that the requirements of the Directive be transposed as follows: • Flood Hazard Maps and Flood Risk Maps are completed by 2010; and

reviewed at 6 yearly intervals thereafter. • Ensuring that a flood risk assessment is done of Scotland by 2011; and

this is reviewed every 6 years. • Flood Risk Management Plans are established by 2015: The Regional

Plans, in line with River Basin Management Districts, should be developed at that level then pulled together into a National Flood Risk Management Plan. The co-ordination of these should be led by the National FLAG, with a statutory requirement for regional FLAGs to have involvement in the process and deliver the regional component plans, involving the stakeholders who will implement them. The plans could be co-ordinated and produced by SEPA, who as Secretariat and Regulator, ensure (on behalf of the Minister) that the plans are produced, compiled and delivered as agreed.

• Ministerial duty to integrate decision making processes and funding streams that have relevance to flooding; ensure that there is a public purse to deliver the plan.

• Close integration with the RBMP process and a Programme of measures • Ministerial duty to ensure resources are in place and managing

knowledge and data happens effectively to inform management of flood risk.

Funding The flooding legislation should aim to deliver a more flexible, integrated funding for a range of measures, including land management for flooding and natural flood retention, hard and soft-engineering measures linked with the delivery of catchment flood management plans. Offering well funded land management schemes, usefully linked to the Restoration and Remediation process of the WFD, redirecting support payments towards alternative from solely hard-engineering, and promotion of natural flood management through existing programmes and initiatives, such as the Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP). Tying support payments to innovative land management practices, such as the natural solutions to flooding would ensure wider public and societal benefits. However, it is possible that not enough funding will be available through the SRDP and schemes are often of limited duration. It may be necessary to look for an alternative method of support and long-term agreements in order to fully appreciate the benefits of natural flood management. 4. What role should sustainable flood management play in mitigating the effects of flooding?


The implementation of sustainable flood management should be the main purpose of the new Flooding Bill. Sustainable flood management is a process. It describes flood risk through a ‘whole river’ or catchment approach. It involves a wide range of stakeholders and defines their roles in flood management. Importantly, it provides many additional benefits beyond flood management. In the context of climate change, it offers huge advantages over the traditional methods of flood management. Sustainable flood management embodies a shift from our predominantly piece-meal and reactive approach to flood management towards a catchment-based approach that takes account of long-term social and economic factors and, together with a wide suite of measures, restores natural processes and natural systems to slow down and store water run-off. A typical sustainable flood management approach would include some or all of the following measures to lower flood risk in a catchment:

• Planning: avoiding development in flood prone areas • Flood Mapping: identifying areas at risk and areas that are safe • Flood Resilience: building or modifying properties to recover quickly

from flood events • Education, advice and awareness raising: raising the awareness of

flooding issues in communities and advising on measures that can be taken to prevent or limit the amount of damage caused and improving the understanding

• Reservoir Management: linking high quality weather information with reservoir storage

• Building Removal: removing properties which, for economic or practical reasons, cannot be protected

• Flood Warning Schemes: allowing quicker and better preparedness for flood events

• Insurance Effects: designating areas with lower or higher insurance premiums based on risk

• Engineering: Hard: constructing walls, embankments and gates; Soft: Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS)

• Natural Flood Management: Involving land-use practices and restoring natural processes

We would expect each Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) would contain a combination of such measures, which together aim to reduce the risk of flooding in a particular catchment. Natural flood management is an integral part of sustainable flood management. It is largely achieved by slowing the flow of water to rivers using natural water and land processes to lower flood risk to people and property further downstream. Within the sustainable flood management approach, it defines the role that farmers, foresters and estate owners have in flood management, within their catchments. Much of it is achieved through land management. Techniques include restoring upland wetlands and


reforesting gullies; replanting native riparian woodland, restoring lowland wetlands and bogs, and re-connecting rivers with floodplains and meanders. It is a cost-effective means of achieving many objectives, including our biodiversity targets and obligations, the aims and objectives of the WFD, improving recreational and well-being opportunities, buffering the effects of climate change, recharging groundwater systems and improving water quality. Such approaches have been shown to deliver social, economic and environmental benefits. An example of a study of economic benefits of a natural floodplain – Insh marshes RSPB nature reserve, is given in the Annexes of this document. Significantly, SFM offers a rare opportunity for urban communities to appreciate the effects of the role and function of land-use in rural areas upstream. The effectiveness of these natural techniques has been extensively tested in a WWF Scotland demonstration project on the River Devon in Clackmannanshire and elsewhere in the UK and Europe (http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/slowingflow_web.pdf. The River Devon project demonstrates that although the effects of river flooding are felt downstream, the causes of flooding actually begin upstream among fields, forests and gullies http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/floodplanner_web.pdf. Findings of the demonstration project and work done by RSPB in Insh marshes and elsewhere6 indicate that by restoring the functionality of rivers and uplands, it is possible to reduce the risk of flooding downstream in the long-term for a fraction of the costs of expensive, short-lived, hard-engineering7. 5. What role can land-use management, the planning system and building regulations play in mitigating the effects of flooding? The way land is managed can have significant effects on the run-off and storage capacity within a catchment. Integration of flood management into development planning, agriculture policy and forestry policy and practice is essential for achieving the objectives of SFM and river basin management. The planning, agriculture and forestry sectors have a key role to play in implementing natural solutions to flooding. However, this will require recognition of the value of natural flood management, and a full integration within the rural land-use policy, as discussed in our answer to question 3. Flood defence and the drainage of farmlands have been actively encouraged by the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) since the late 1940s, with the aim of increasing and securing food production. Major drainage schemes are still maintained today under the Land Drainage Act (Scotland) 1958 and 1930. However, agricultural and forestry policies are changing and the emphasis is increasingly on diversification, the delivery of public benefits and the protection and enhancement of the environment. Where flood banks are protecting marginally viable or even higher quality land, decisions need to be made on whether current farming and forestry practices are genuinely providing the widest benefits from that land or whether

6 Time for a Change RSPB 2007 7 Flood Planner WWF 2007

http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/slowingflow_web.pdf

http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/floodplanner_web.pdf


the public interest would be better served by a change in land management. The CAP has the potential to benefit sustainable flood management through support of natural flood management techniques; but measures may be limited by the funding and prioritisation process. The views of farmers, foresters and other land managers are obviously critical to implementing sustainable flood management. To encourage a positive approach, there is a pressing need for appropriate and targeted incentives to encourage restoration to more sympathetic, less intensive management of land which can be used to lower flood risk to communities. There is an urgent requirement for an appropriate funding mechanism, combining compensation and reward. Redirecting flood scheme budgets from a wholly engineered approach to supporting the sustainable flood management approach is a major part of the solution. Achieving integrated land management will need much closer co-operation between traditional land use sectors (notably agriculture, forestry, transport and building) but the potential economic and environmental benefits will be significant. Wider land use measures to deliver SFM will also deliver a range of other policy priorities including improved biodiversity, soil protection and erosion control, climate change adaptation (including habitat networks), access and recreation, and landscape value.


2. Proposed structures for flood risk management planning in Scotland

• Coordination • Funding • Standards • Operations • Policies

Links to RBMP

Links to RBMP

National ‘FLAG’

Ans

wer

s to

Flood Risk Management

Plan

Subm

itted

to

Prod

uces

a

Regional FLAGs +

Catchment Flood Issue

Des

crib

ed

by

Floods Directive• Assessment and

management of flood risk • Integration with WFD • Public Participation • Preliminary Flood risk

assessment • Flood hazard/risk maps

Scottish Ministers

National Advisory

Group

River Basin Management

Plan

Area Advisory Groups

WFD• Prevent deterioration of aquatic

ecosystems • Promote sustainable water use • Reduce pollution • Contribute to the mitigation of

floods and droughts • Achieve good ecological status • Public participation

Scottish Parliament

Ans

wer

s to

SEPA

as Secretariat / Regulator

Responsible authorities and other stakeholders such as SEPA, LAs, FC, NGOs, NFUS, SW, SNH

Subm

itted

to

Prod

uces

a

Des

crib

ed

by

Catchment status issue

Integration

Flood Risk Management Plan

• Planning • Flood maps • Hard/soft engineering • Natural Flood

Management • Flood resilience • Flood warning • Education/awareness

raising


FLOODING AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT INQUIRY

ANNEXES

1. Insh marshes: economic benefits of a natural floodplain Background information Insh Marshes is recognised as an internationally important wetland site with diverse habitats that support a rich variety of flora and fauna. The site covers almost 1000 hectares of the floodplain of the River Spey between Kingussie and Kincraig, at the foot of the Cairngorms. This large flat area of poorly drained land, which extends approximately 7.5 km in length and up to 1.5Km in width, is the most important floodplain mire in Britain, largely due to its unspoilt character. Historically, floodplain mire systems such as Insh Marshes were once common in Britain but most similar river valleys have now been drained, and their flow regimes controlled. The importance of the site is reflected in its many conservation designations: SSSI, Ramsar, Special Protection Area (SPA), Candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) and Proposed National Nature Reserve. Insh Marshes is additionally part of the proposed World Heritage Site, Cairngorms National Park and Cairngorm Mountain Scenic Area, and is within the Cairngorms Strath Environmentally Sensitive Area. The major habitats on Insh Marshes are open water, scrub, basin mire, swamp, tall fen and marsh. Several rare plant species, breeding and wintering birds, invertebrates and other animals are found on the site, which contains habitats and vegetation types of international, national and local importance. As an ecologically valuable wetland, a complex hydrological system and a naturally functioning floodplain, Insh Marshes is an interesting case study for considering the role if natural floodplains in sustainable flood management. The floodplain provides several social, economic and environmental benefits to the Spey catchment. Natural floodplain systems such as this can have multiple uses, such as flood defence, enhancing biodiversity, and helping to maintain good water quality. Cumulatively, these contribute significantly to the local economy. Similar benefits could be accrued elsewhere by using natural or semi-natural wetlands for flood prevention. Restoring degraded river systems and reinstating the links between rivers and their floodplains should also be an important factor in achieving good ecological status under the European Water Framework Directive, and a principle aim of sustainable flood management. Multiple functions and economic value of the Insh Marshes floodplain The Insh Marshes floodplain performs multiple functions that have economic value that benefit the local economy. Although sometimes difficult to quantify, the economic value of these uses are undoubtedly significant in a rural economy such as this. Many of the floodplain uses rely heavily on the natural functioning of the hydrological system and the high ecological quality of the floodplain. Summary of economic values in given in Table 1.


The natural functions of the floodplain support a range of economic benefits each year, including:

• Spending by visitors and tourists • Outdoor recreation and quality of life • Educational facilities at the RSPB’s Insh Marshes reserve • Local agricultural enterprises which utilise the floodplain • Fishing on the floodplain and downstream on the Spey • Other local enterprises, such as B&B’s, who advertise with reference to

the quality of the floodplain • Flood defence benefits to Aviemore, and other settlements and

farmland downstream • Water resources functions, such as improvements to water quality

Table 1: Economic benefits of Insh marshes

Use Details Economic value

Flood defence Insh Marshes holds water after heavy rainfall and snowmelt, protecting downstream properties and farmland from extensive flooding. Flood risk is reduced to settlements such as parts of Aviemore, a significant base for the local tourist economy. The equivalent engineered flood control measures would be very expensive and result in the loss of important wildlife habitat.

In the absence of the floodplain, a rough examination of maps suggests that 7km of flood defence banks might be required to protect Aviemore. This respresents a value of £1,170,000 for construction and maintenance (£1,310,400 in 2007 prices)8

Visitors Tourism is vital to the Highlands economy, with over a quarter of the Highlands and Islands employment being accounted for by hotels and restaurants. The floodplain plays an important part in the scenery and supports visitor attractions such as Insh Marshes RSPB Nature Reserve and Loch Insh Watersports Centre.

There were about 12,000 visitors to Insh Marshes RSPB Reserve in 2006/07, contributing approximately £132,000 to the local economy.

Farming Livestock grazing at appropriate densities maintains the floodplain’s high biodiversity value. ESA scheme and agri-environment schemes providing valuable incomes to the reserve, its agricultural partners and local graziers.

The rate of agri-environmental payments are currently difficult to quantify

Fishing The wetland system on the Insh Marshes floodplain helps to maintain the natural conditions, particularly water quality, that are vital to the Spey’s valuable fish stocks.

Landowners lease fishing rights on the Insh Marshes floodplain to the Badenoch Angling Association producing revenue of over £3,500 p.a.

Conservation management

The majority of RSPB’s reserve management expenditure is spent within the local economy. Two permanent staff are employed on the RSPB reserve. In addition, in 2006/07, 3,540 hours of work are contributed annually from volunteers, including those from the local community or on long term placements.

Of the £83,504 spent on reserve management during 2006/07, over two-thirds was spent with local businesses. This included the employment of contractors on the reserve for over 45 man-days.

Water Quality The floodplain can improve water quality by storing nutrients and pollutants in the sediments and in vegetation.

Contributes towards the aims of WFD and benefits the river’s salmonid populations, for

8 A capitalised value indicates the total resource requirement at current prices, or equivalently, the amount of money that would need to be banked now, earning 5% interest, to meet the costs over the next 50 years. Capitalised values reflect the market value of land and investments, as they represent total returns/costs from an asset.


example, so representing economic value.

Education and training

Insh Marshes provides a valuable recreational and education resource

(Unquantified)

Enterprises linked to the floodplain

Loch Insh Watersports centre forms a major part of the local tourism economy, benefiting from the high water and scenic qualities of the floodplain. Several Bed and Breakfast establishments attract custom by advertising their proximity to the Insh Marshes Floodplain and the RSPB Reserve.

(Unquantified)

Biodiversity and Conservation

The Insh Marshes floodplain contains important wetland habitats and is renowned for its biodiversity, including the number and variety of breeding waders, wintering populations of whooper swans and hen harriers and rich diversity of plants and invertebrates.

(Unquantified)

RAE/S3/08/3/9 Agenda item


SUBMISSION FROM SCOTTISH HYDROLOGICAL GROUP Introduction This response to the Call for Evidence issued on behalf of the RAE Committee is presented by the Scottish Hydrological Group. The SHG is a professional and technical association whose object is to encourage and advance the study of hydrology, in particular in a Scottish context, by holding meetings and seminars for the discussion of papers, by arranging technical visits and through other appropriate activities. It is a specialist Group of the Institution of Civil Engineers in Scotland, and is affiliated to the British Hydrological Society. Our interests extend to all aspects of hydrology and its relevance to human interests and activities, as well as to the environment generally, including:

• Hydrometry; the measurement and recording of hydrological parameters.

• The conservation and management of water resources. • The interaction between hydrology and ecology. • Predicting flood frequency and risk. • Real time forecasting of surface water, fluvial and coastal flooding.

Response to the Call for Evidence 1. What is the potential impact of climate change on the frequency and

severity of all types of flooding in Scotland? The RAE Committee will doubtless have access to up-to-date informed opinion on the dimensions of climate change impacts on Scotland. This is now becoming firmer, and may be summarised as:

• Increased rainfall • Increased storminess • Rising sea levels

Hydrologists have some difficulty in responding to climate change predictions, since the foundation of our science is the assumption that the future will be like the past, and that a sufficiently long historical record of a particular phenomenon is an adequate basis on which to predict the future probability of occurrence. This is no longer true. Our best response at present is either to increase the probability, saying for example that a once in 50 year event will become a once in 20 year event, or simply to increase the severity of the once in 50 year event. The three main types of flooding which will be affected, whether regarded as an increase in frequency or of severity, are:


a) Surface Water Flooding The flooding of roads, streets and sometimes property in developed areas as a result of the overwhelming of man-made surface water drainage systems. Due to the rapid response to rainfall of urban systems, they are generally more sensitive to changes in the characteristics of short duration, high intensity rainfall. Recent urban floods, such as were experienced in Glasgow in 2002 and Inverness in 2003, are consistent with the increased storminess and summer rainfall suggested by climate change predictions. b) Fluvial Flooding Out-of-bank flow of rivers, so that the water occupies all or part of the natural flood plain. This operates to the detriment of riparian agriculture, which is historically accustomed to the periodic occupation of the flood plain by water, but which will have to cope with increased frequency/severity. However it operates much more severely to the detriment of those substantial areas of urban development which have over the years been allowed to spread over natural flood plains. River systems are generally sensitive to changes in longer duration rainfall in excess of 12 hours, although the critical duration will depend on the catchment characteristics. It is not always easy to identify the effects of climate change when the physical characteristics of catchments have also changed within the same time frame. The records of river flow in Scotland allow us to assess trends over no more than the last 100 years, whereas over the same time period catchments have experienced substantial change in land use and land cover resulting in a changed runoff response. It is thus difficult to assess the impact of climate change in isolation. Moreover, the clustering of flood events within the record period (such as the grouping of floods in the early 1990s) reinforces the need for good quality long term river flow records. c) Coastal Flooding Coastal flooding results from a combination of circumstances; i.e.

• Natural, lunar-induced high tides, • Storm surges, caused by low barometric pressure as well as the

effects of wind, tide and currents in the narrow seas around the British coast.

• Wind-driven wave action All of these are likely to increase as a result of climate change, making this its greatest impact. They will be experienced, albeit in differing proportions, on the east coast of Scotland, as a result of the southward narrowing of the North Sea, on the west coast in long, narrowing tidal waters and on the coasts directly exposed to the Atlantic.


2. What changes are needed to the existing legislation?

Current legislation is dated and has not moved with our knowledge and understanding nor does it reflect lessons learned by recent experience. The bi-annual reports published by local authorities as a requirement of The Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1997 revision to the 1961 Act suggest that there is not a consistent approach to flood risk management. This may reflect the varying level of resources allocated to flooding by local authorities.

For sustainable flood management to be effective the legislation must give power to the competent authorities and must provide incentives. In addition, it must reflect the linkages with the Water Framework Directive and the consequent Scottish legislation (Water Environment and Water Services Act (Scotland) 2003). Scotland has taken a significant step forward by introducing the concept of sustainable flood management into this Act and by establishing the Flood Issues and Advisory Committee (FIAC). The publications of FIAC should provide the basis for managing the inherent contradiction between the main objectives of the WFD, i.e. the protection and enhancement of the water environment, and flood protection, which could be described as the protection of people and property from the water environment. It is perhaps in acknowledgement of this contradiction that the European Union proposes a new Directive on the assessment and management of floods. This will be separate from, although will have regard to, the WFD.

New Scottish legislation should certainly await publication of the EU Directive, but subject to the requirements of this should address the following key issues:

• A catchment or coastal cell scale approach to flood risk management. • The recognition of alternative approaches to flood protection and the

provision of incentives to adopt sustainable approaches. • The mechanism to resource flood protection measures. • The need to interface with the WFD and other relevant EU legislation. • To bring clarity to the management of flood risk in Scotland (i.e. by

identifying competent authorities and their duties and powers) • Consistency with planning policy. • Powers and duties for the maintenance of flood schemes, channels,

coastal defences etc.

Secondary issues which new legislation should also address are:

• A duty for all publicly-funded bodies to make their hydrometric data publicly available at an affordable cost. This includes the Met Office, which data are often ignored by practitioners due to their high cost. New internet-based technology should allow easy access to historic datasets by all practitioners.

• The inclusion of a workable definition of Sustainable Flood Management (see response to Question 4 below).


• Defined responsibility for the active management of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) to maintain their effectiveness.

New legislation should avoid the word ‘prevention’ which suggests a level of protection which cannot be offered, given that flood prediction is based on probability.

3. Who should be responsible for flood management and how should it be funded?

Flood management and protection measures are often capital-intensive and there is a need for this reason for central funding and hence control. In addition, natural forces are independent of administrative boundaries, and flood management and protection needs to operate on the scale of the river catchment or coastal cell (the length of the coast, normally between headlands, over which coastal processes are continuous).

However, in Scotland only the Scottish Office/Scottish Government has ever exercised an overall responsibility for flood management and protection, and that with a fairly light touch. SEPA does not have the role which the Environment Agency has, for historic reasons, taken in England and Wales and local authorities in Scotland are keen to hold on to the powers they have in order to be able to respond to local requirements and, importantly, to hold on to the resources.

We see no need to remove entirely this power and resource from LAs, provided that the Gov’t. retains the power to prioritise between their needs, to move resources if necessary and, where appropriate, to require co-operation within a river basin or coastal cell.

Prioritisation and distribution of available funds must be shown to be based on transparent (economic, social and environmental) criteria. However, it should be sufficiently simple and pragmatic, avoiding long and complex procedures which local authorities will find difficult to manage with their limited resources. It should also encourage all aspects of sustainability in flood management, and the use of an integrated, catchment or coastal cell based approach (see also 4 below for definition of sustainable flood management).

4. What role should sustainable flood management play in mitigating the effects of flooding?

The first requirement would be a workable definition of sustainable flood management, since the expression contains inherent contradictions. True sustainability would be represented in many cases by ‘do nothing’, a clearly unacceptable approach given the large areas of population and economic activity which are sited on river flood plains or near vulnerable coasts. The best, albeit less than rigorous, definition is that of trying to adapt to, make use of and respect natural forces in order to protect this human capital, rather than confronting them.


Judged by these criteria, sustainable flood management becomes a suite of methods, each to be used in appropriate circumstances, not excluding retreat and abandonment of the human capital in some circumstances. It must on the other hand still include hard, traditionally engineered flood protection measures in the short and medium term to mitigate the effects of unsustainable practices in the past, such as development in the natural flood plain. This would apply where the human capital was of high value, and adoption of such measures must carry with it the commitment to maintain and renew for as long as deemed necessary and economical to do so.

Sustainable flood management should be based on a well planned, integrated and risk based approach, and not be reactive and driven by the latest flood event occurring in a region or locality.

Sustainable flood management encompasses the following, not exhaustive, list of techniques:

• Flood detention storage, in which a volume of flood water is detained in a sacrificial, low value upstream area and released to pass through a constrained, high value downstream area at a controlled rate. Such a solution is proposed for the White Cart on the south side of Glasgow, where total reliance on conventional hard defences would be very costly and unacceptable in terms of their impact on the urban area.

• Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) whereby, at a much smaller scale, urban run-off is directed to swales (wider than normal open drainage channels), soakaways, detention ponds etc. in order to reduce, attenuate or delay the impact on the surface water drainage system. SUDS are demonstrably effective, but are difficult to install in existing urban areas where space provision has not been made. In addition, defined responsibility for long-term maintenance is essential.

• Coastal defences which rely on retaining and directing natural beach material using groynes or rock structures.

• Managed retreat, whereby a forward coastal defence is abandoned and a coastal wetland created or re-created.

• Removal or replacement of hydraulic constraints such as bridges and culverts.

• Flood walls and embankments set back from the river bank and maintaining a degree of natural flood plain.

• Open channel realignment and restoration using best practice techniques (the River Restoration Centre is a good source of information on such techniques)

• Acceptance of a certain flood risk, coupled with use of flood-resistant infrastructure and adequate flood forecasting and warning.

• Purchase and demolition of individual properties which cannot economically be protected.

• Improved land use management seeking attenuation of flood flows, encompassing upland forestry, lowland agricultural drainage and urban drainage.


The implementation of the techniques should be supported by an impact assessment using best practice modelling approved by a regulatory body such as SEPA.

5. What role can land-use management, the planning system and building regulations play in mitigating the effects of flooding?

Considering first the planning system, clearly the basic principle should be no development in river flood plains or vulnerable coastal areas. The question then arises of policy to be adopted in response to proposals for replacement buildings and infill sites in existing developed areas which are at risk, but which may have some degree of protection. Scotland is fortunate in not having large areas of this nature, such as in the Netherlands or eastern England, but some, e.g. the city of Perth, do exist. The planning system cannot require such areas to decline and decay.

We would advocate a policy of defined minimum standards of protection, with responsibility for maintenance, combined with building regulation requirements for flood resistance and adequate flood forecasting and warning. Where appropriate, and provided owners and occupiers are fully aware of their level of risk, individual flood protection products could be promoted.

At the level of surface water drainage, installation of SUDS should normally be mandatory.

Land use management impacts on flood risk in a different way, in that changes in land use in a river catchment can affect its response to rainfall. This is a topic which has been the subject of much research, whose results sometimes contradict subjective perceptions. Accordingly, any proposal for large-scale land use change in a river catchment should always require a flood risk assessment.

The Scottish Government should also promote and support research and knowledge management dedicated to the Scottish context. This includes the fields of hydrometric monitoring, hydrological modelling, socio-economic and environmental assessment. Catchment scale pilot studies should be encouraged, especially in urban areas.

6. Are there any improvements needed to existing flood warning systems?

The expression ‘flood warning’ actually encompasses a number of activities:

• flood forecasting, at which we are fairly good although could be better; • flood warning, the actual delivery of a timely message to those at risk,

which is an altogether more difficult problem; • raising the awareness of the population to the risk of flooding both

within and outwith areas served by flood warning schemes; and • the provision of information and advice to those at risk during a flood

event.


Flood forecasting

Forecasting of river flooding is well-established and, within the limitations of measurement and rainfall prediction, reliable. In the case of flood risk areas at the lower ends of long rivers, such as the River Tay at Perth, upstream gauging provides the basis for forecasting. For areas subject to more rapid response, techniques such as weather radar and satellite imagery provide the link between meteorology and hydrology. The recent development of the Flood Early Warning System (FEWS) in South West Scotland by SEPA demonstrates that modern technology and a good monitoring network can provide a good platform on which to integrate flow and rainfall data to provide warning to smaller, flashier catchments such as the White Cart or the River Kelvin.

For surface water flooding however, e.g. Glasgow Shettleston area in 2002, to provide an area-specific forecast is more difficult, and the best that can probably be achieved is to warn of heavy rain and that usually susceptible areas may be at risk.

For coastal flooding, the mechanisms for the prediction of storm surges are well established through the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Liverpool. Their data is applied to an existing model of the Firth of Clyde to provide flood warnings, although this model is now ripe for development and improvement. There is no comparable use of this data for the east coast of Scotland. A difficulty with storm surge modelling is the critical nature of timing; a surge whose peak coincides with a lunar-induced spring tide could be disastrous; a peak two hours earlier would have no serious effects.

The common key to all successful flood forecasting is the painstaking collection and recording of data.

Dissemination of flood warnings

Flood forecasting is of value only if a timely warning reaches those at risk and they take effective action. Implicit in the latter is that they must not receive too many false alarms; the fable of the boy and the wolf is especially relevant to flood warnings. Selective and direct flood warning dissemination is now technically feasible; its implementation should go some way to ensuring this and needs support from the Scottish Government.

Public Awareness

SEPA has carried out an annual public awareness campaign since 2001. This campaign is essential to ensure that those at risk from flooding, particularly those in areas served by flood warning schemes, are prepared to respond upon the receipt of a flood warning. There have been numerous studies on the social and economic impacts of flooding and the value of flood warnings. However, frequent and targeted awareness campaigns are an essential component of a flood warning service.


It is also important that the effectiveness of awareness campaigns is monitored in order to improve methods and to ensure that they are cost effective.

7. How effective are the responses to flooding events?

The response to flooding events in terms of action by the emergency services and LAs, provision of emergency accommodation, supplies etc. is not an area in which hydrologists are normally involved. There is however a real need for post-event hydrological analysis; the development of hydrology depends on our understanding of past events. Such analysis would assess frequency and make the information widely available to both specialists and the wider non-specialist interest group. Another key statistic is the actual cost of a flood event, only in 2003 was there research in Scotland into this aspect. Till then there was no clear information on the cost of flooding.

In all this, data recording is the key, including inundation envelope mapping, flood levels referred to Ordnance Datum, flood depths and flow velocities. These parameters have recently been highlighted as of key importance in recent research conducted by the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER) into the benefits of flood warning. They will also be required to implement the EU Flood Directive (mapping of flood hazard), but they are seldom available to support the calibration of robust hydrological and hydraulic models.

Sustained support given to flow gauging for the full range of extreme flows (low and high) is also extremely important, to enable assessment of flood frequency and risk with a reasonable degree of reliability.



SUBMISSION FROM SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE Thank you for your invitation to provide written evidence to the above inquiry. Responses to the questions posed by the committee, where they are relevant to the natural heritage, are set out in the attached annex. Flooding is a natural process that cannot be stopped but can be managed. Flooding and the fear of flooding can have severe impacts on individuals and on local communities and climate change is likely to increase the risk of flooding in Scotland. In our evidence we have concentrated on the role that natural processes and habitats can play in mitigating the effects of flooding. We wish to see greater use of Natural Flood Management techniques as part of Sustainable Flood Management in order to deal with flooding and provide additional benefits for biodiversity, geodiversity, landscape, recreation and reducing the impact of diffuse pollution. We have commented on the changes to legislation, policy and funding mechanisms that we believe are needed to bring about this change in approach to flood risk management. I hope that you find this evidence helpful. Annex SNH Evidence to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee Inquiry on Flooding and Flood Management What is the potential impact of climate change on the frequency and severity of all types of flooding in Scotland? Projections Climate change is likely to increase the risk of flooding. Models project an increase in the amount of rain and an increase in rainfall intensity. Both of these factors will increase the risk of river flooding and of surface and sewer flooding. In addition, a projected rise in sea levels and increase in storminess will lead to an increase in the risk of surges which cause coastal flooding. Impacts from an increase in the frequency, severity and unpredictability of extreme weather events are also likely to be important, e.g. landslips, flash-flooding in small water courses, and erosion near rivers. As well as impacts on society and infrastructure, there will also be impacts on the natural heritage from these changes, for example erosion of valuable coastal habitats, erosion of spawning beds for salmon and freshwater pearl mussel habitats.


Research The impact of climate change on flooding is an area that is being further researched. Currently SNH is involved in a SNIFFER (Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research) project carrying out a scoping review to establish the historical, present and future risk of coastal flooding in Scotland, which is due to report in 2008. SNH is one of the funders along with the Scottish Government. SEPA, RSPB and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar also sit on the steering committee. What changes are needed to the existing legislation? Changes in approach to flooding The key pieces of legislation relating to flooding in Scotland are the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961, the Coast Protection Act 1949 and the Land Drainage (Scotland) Acts of 1958 and 1930. All now look distinctly dated. since they were enacted, thinking on dealing with flooding has changed. It is now accepted that a flood risk management approach on a catchment scale is required, as opposed to crude flood prevention. A catchment scale approach requires assessment of flood risk and the measures needed to be put in place on this scale. Under such an approach, there are options for utilising natural habitats to contribute to flood management. However, current flood prevention schemes brought forward under the Flood Prevention Act can only deal with flooding on non-agricultural land. Furthermore, the measures put in place through this legislation to deal with flooding consist of hard engineered flood defence schemes. The legislation does not allow for soft engineering options to be funded or for flood management to be considered at the catchment scale. Under the Coast Protection Act, some of the softer (and more sustainable) methods that might be adopted are at a disadvantage because their broader environmental benefits are not incorporated within the strict cost-benefit analysis. Examples of the exclusion of these broader benefits include recreational benefits being excluded from beach-feeding projects, and multiple benefits, which may include biodiversity, fisheries and amenity as well as simply flood defence, which can derive from saltmarsh creation. This initiates against integrated, more sustainable and more modern approaches to managing coastal erosion. There is a new European Directive on Flooding which will require the production of Flood Risk Management Plans. The requirement to transpose this Directive into Scottish law gives us the opportunity to review current flooding legislation and evaluate developing thoughts on best practice in dealing with flooding, in order to come up to new legislation that is more appropriate for the needs of today and of an increasingly uncertain future. New flooding legislation needs to work comfortably alongside the legislation for implementing the Water Framework Directive and can also help attain the objectives of conservation legislation such as the Birds and Habitats Directives. Any proposals affecting Natura sites would need to be appraised using standard procedures. There is a clear need to ensure that any Flood


Risk Management Plans have strong links and interconnections with River Basin Management Plans (the timetable for production of plans in the Floods Directive has been deliberately tied in with the reporting timetable for WFD). Links with the forthcoming Scottish Marine Bill will be needed when considering coastal and estuarine flooding. Sustainable approaches Particularly important is a revision of the legislation to support a Sustainable Flood Management approach that makes use of techniques involving Natural Flood Management. Flood management measures need to work in harmony with natural processes and seek to utilise the natural water storage capacity provided by habitats in a catchment. The restoration of habitats such as wetlands and natural river channels, landforms and flow processes can deliver multiple benefits. As well as providing for flood management, these Natural Flood Management techniques contribute to reducing diffuse pollution and improving biodiversity, geodiversity, amenity and landscape. By re-establishing habitat networks that have become fragmented and restoring natural ecosystem processes, there will also be an increased resilience to climate change. Importantly, these additional benefits from Natural Flood Management measures accrue at all times, not just during flood events. There is an opportunity to encourage a more holistic approach to flood risk management by understanding the natural processes involved (including flood histories). A new flood risk management regime should operate at a catchment scale, which will include many different land-use scenarios. It is important that new approaches to flood risk management include agricultural land, particularly in relation to changes in its management. Surface water management An additional piece of legislation that may need to be changed is the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968. There is a need to consider the links between drainage and flooding. Appropriate management of surface water run-off can reduce flooding risks and the risk of sewers being overloaded and overflowing. Consideration needs to be given to Integrated Drainage/Surface water management plans that bring together the responsibilities held by Scottish Water (SW), local authorities and SEPA. Under the WEWS Act and the Controlled Activities Regulations, almost all new developments are required to have Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) installed to deal with surface water run-off. These SUDS can be adopted by Scottish Water where they are in public areas. However, currently Scottish Water is constrained by only being allowed to adopt/maintain SUDS that meet the drainage requirement of a 1 in 30 year flood event. If it took on and maintained schemes that exceeded this standard, it would be challenged by the Water Industry Commissioner for exceeding its statutory duties and imposing unnecessary costs on its customers. This leads to the odd situation in which legal agreements have to be made to determine responsibility in cases in which, for example, a larger pond is desired for amenity purposes,


or SUDS schemes are built that will help deal with levels of floods more severe than the 1 in 30 year flood event. Scottish Water is currently drawing up a standard Section 7 agreement under the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 that it wishes to agree with all Local Authorities. It then plans to append to this agreement schedules for individual developments that set out who is responsible for each component of SUDS. This is a rather convoluted way to deal with a measure which is a logical part of a project integrated approach to managing drainage, flooding and amenity. A review of drainage legislation alongside flooding legislation could consider the relationship between the two regimes. Procedures In addition to these legislative and policy drivers, there is a need to streamline the procedures for approving flood management schemes. Currently, flood defence proposals have to go through a Scottish Government process for funding, approvals through Planning and through the Controlled Activities Regulations. These processes need to be brought together so that the time to progress an application can be shortened, whilst still allowing for the democratic scrutiny of environmental impact and other matters. Who should be responsible for flood management and how should it be funded? Responsibilities There are currently a number of bodies in Scotland with responsibility for and involvement in flood management, including Local Authorities, Scottish Government, SEPA and Scottish Water. There is a need for clear roles and responsibilities in this area. For the future, responsibility and funding for flood management needs to combine the rural and urban elements, to ensure a holistic approach to flood risk management. We understand that SEPA is likely to be the competent authority for the Floods Directive. Through this it will have a greater role to play in flood management, particularly through developments of Flood Risk Management Plans. This seems sensible but it is an appropriate time to consider whether there needs to be any other redistribution of responsibilities to simplify the working of flood management. Regardless of who takes on the roles of competent and responsible authorities, it is vital to define clearly just what these roles entail. Duties should be specified and staff with the appropriate skills to undertake these duties should be employed. The status of the Flood Risk Management Plan in relation to other planning frameworks needs to be made clear and there needs to be a clearly available funding stream for delivering the plan. Funding One major issue concerns how changes in land management to provide flood management services are to be funded. Currently, the source of funding for potential measures would be the Scottish Rural Development Programme


(SRDP). This has a limited range of options of relevance to flood management and has historically been hugely oversubscribed. In addition the funding is relatively short term and would not match up well with funding of hard engineered parts of schemes; if part of a flood scheme is dependent on flood storage on agricultural land then that arrangement needs to be as longstanding as any hard engineered defence. Adequate, long term funding is required for measures such as restoring floodplains and allowing them to flood, otherwise it will not be a sustainable solution. However, land required for flood storage can also serve other needs. Some agricultural or forestry land uses would be compatible with occasional use for flood storage, e.g. willow coppice for biomass. The creation of natural wetlands could also contribute to carbon storage, as well as supporting biodiversity conservation objectives. An alternative would be to purchase land for flood management purposes. This could be done either by public bodies through compulsory purchase or possibly by supporting with public money its acquisition by community or voluntary bodies committed to implementing the appropriate management regimes. In the short term however, agri-environment measures can be used to provide multiple benefits for flood management, mitigation of diffuse pollution, improvements in biodiversity, landscape and recreation, e.g. creation of riparian woodland and buffer strips. These measures with multiple benefits should be a priority for funding under SRDP, as should collaborative approaches that look at issues at the catchment scale. In many areas, flood management requires a co-ordinated approach to land management across the whole catchment. Funding programmes need to prioritise and facilitate such collaborative, co-ordinated approaches which may involve significant expense at the early stages of survey, research, trial and reporting. Long term funding packages are therefore required, to ensure the continued and simultaneous support of several landowners. We would recommend that there should be trial flood management schemes established in Scotland in areas of greatest flooding risk, in order to establish best practice in design and funding. Such catchment-wide schemes clearly need to be linked closely with the river basin planning process and the catchment restoration strategies being considered by SEPA under WFD. Ways must be found to fund coastal realignment projects, as no such mechanism currently exists in Scotland. This contrasts sharply with the situation in England and Wales, where there has been agri-environment funding for restoration and creation of saltmarsh for many years. Consideration also needs to be given to the provision of funds for retrofitting Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems to developments. What role should sustainable flood management play in mitigating the effects of flooding?


Sustainable Flood Management and Natural Flood Management techniques SNH was involved in the Flooding Issues Advisory Committee (FIAC) that has drawn up the proposals on Sustainable Flood Management. The impending consultation will include a definition and objectives and principles of SFM but there is a need for more of the detail to be developed on how SFM would work in practice. New flooding legislation, which should be accompanied by detailed guidance, should provide more substance on how SFM will be implemented. The guidance is needed for responsible authorities to clarify their roles in promoting and implementing SFM, and for land managers to explain their responsibilities. In this evidence we have referred to Natural Flood Management, which is a term used by WWF in recent publications on flood management and also explored by RSPB in recent work. In order for Natural Flood Management to play a full role, demonstration projects are required to help improve understanding of the measures that can be used and to demonstrate the effects/benefits. Natural Flood Management needs to be coordinated at the catchment level and needs to be integrated with hard engineering solutions. The consideration of Natural Flood Management and Sustainable Flood Management also needs to be integrated into River Basin Management Plans, in particular the restoration strategies that SEPA will be producing as part of the measures to meet the objectives set for WFD water bodies. The UK government has just produced a new framework called Conserving Biodiversity – The UK Approach. This document recommends using the Ecosystem Approach for conserving biodiversity. One of the principles of the Ecosystem Approach is that ‘conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target’. What role can land-use management, the planning system and building regulations play in mitigating the effects of flooding? Land use management, the planning system and building regulations all have an important role to play. The new EU Floods Directive will require us to consider all of these in Flood Risk Management Plans. An EU press release on the Directive describes the plans as follows: “They will address all phases of the flood risk management cycle but focus particularly on prevention (i.e. preventing damage caused by floods by avoiding construction of houses and industries in present and future flood-prone areas or by adapting future developments to the risk of flooding), protection (by taking measures to reduce the likelihood of floods and/or impact of floods in a specific location such as restoring flood plains and wetlands) and preparedness (e.g. providing instructions to the public on what to do in the event of flooding).”

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/pdfs/biodiversity/ConBioUK-Oct2007.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/pdfs/biodiversity/ConBioUK-Oct2007.pdf


The role of land-use management and the planning system are of particular relevance to the natural heritage. Land use management Natural Flood Management requires the inclusion and consideration of agricultural, upland and forestry land in flood management schemes. It requires a catchment approach, crossing administrative boundaries and linking rural and urban areas. It would require a revision of policy and funding for rural areas and land managers to take account of the wider societal and community benefits that arise from managing land to reduce flood risks that may only be apparent further downstream in urban areas. These benefits for flood management would also bring additional public benefits by helping to counter diffuse pollution and by improving biodiversity, geodiversity, landscape and recreation, for example from the creation of woodlands and wetlands and restoring natural landforms and river processes. Planning The Planning system has a vital role to play in steering development away from areas of high risk of flooding – as set out in SPP7. There will be a need to update this planning guidance once we have new flooding legislation in place, to include reference to Flood Risk Management Plans and catchment approaches to mitigating flooding. In the coming decades it will become important that our low-lying coastal areas are managed within an integrated framework. With the likely introduction of Marine Spatial Planning through the forthcoming Scottish Marine Bill, it is important that the mobile coastal zone is subject to proper planning and does not fall into a gap between the marine and terrestrial planning systems. Given the increasing rates of sea level rise expected in the coming decades the non-statutory approach is unlikely to be powerful enough to address these pressures. A systematic approach to Shoreline Management Planning, linked to appropriate guidance and funding, would help to address this issue, and this should be identified as a core role for a centralised statutory body charged with national coordination of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (perhaps a Scottish Marine Management Organisation, as recommended by the Advisory Group on Marine and Coastal Strategy [AGMACS]). There is a need for Government and planners to consider areas presently at risk and new areas which will become increasingly threatened as climate change affects our landscape. Planners may wish to plan for the eventual removal of unsustainable development from certain areas of the floodplain and coastal zone. Strategic development plans should deal with flooding at the catchment level and there will need to be clear guidance on the role of Flood Risk Management Plans in relation to development plans. Although the SEPA flood maps are a useful tool in assessing broad risk from fluvial or coastal inundation, they should be seen as the latest step, rather


than the definitive dataset. Low-lying coastal zones are particularly vulnerable to miscalculation, due to the relative coarseness of the original dataset. Partnership work led by SNH in the Western Isles has captured a superior digital map, using LiDAR, which is being used by agencies and the Council to improve sustainable management. The suitability of additional LiDAR coverage for particular ‘problem areas’ within the SEPA flood maps is being considered within the Scoping Review of Coastal Flooding in Scotland. Impact assessments relating to land use planning should model the consequences of land use change, both positive and negative, to see how future options for society are closed down or opened up by proposals. Given future uncertainties, preference should be given to proposals that leave options open in the future should the situation change, or new solutions be found. Options appraisal for flood management should include assessment of the greenhouse gas emission intensity of proposals (life cycle analysis). This is likely to favour natural flood management techniques over hard engineering solutions. Drainage In urban areas, the development of strategic/integrated urban drainage plans to cover drainage and surface water management should be considered. This can include opening up culverted watercourses to reduce flooding and improve amenity and biodiversity value in urban areas, and increasing the amount of permeable areas and reducing the quantity of run off at source. Plans can identify areas that might be allowed to flood, rather than channelling water to sewers which then overflow. The WEWS Act requires the use of SUDS for new developments. Once standards are agreed, it is planned that Scottish Water will adopt all public SUDS. In our response to the consultation on this, we asked that Scottish Water give further consideration to standards for constructed wetlands, as well as detention ponds and basins, both because of their biodiversity benefits and because we believe they are generally appropriate options for management of water flow and water quality. The FIAC Avoidance Subcommittee also recommended that Scottish Water produces a Wastewater plan in parallel with the Water Resource Plan to address water quality issues and a full appraisal to be carried out of sewerage, SUDS potential and combined sewer overflow reduction. Interconnections The interconnections between strategic Development Plans, Flood Risk Management Plans, River Basin Management Plans, Drainage Plans plus voluntary Firths Management Strategies, Shoreline Management Plans (where these exist) and future regional/local level marine spatial planning need to be made.


Are there any improvements needed to existing flood warning systems? No comment How effective are the responses to flooding events? No comment



SUBMISSION FROM SCOTTISH RURAL PROPERTY AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

The Scottish Rural Property and Business Association welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence to the flood and flood management inquiry. The SRPBA represents the interests of a wide range of land based business these include farming, forestry and estate management. For that reason, SRPBA is particularly interested in this Inquiry and in the development of the Flood Prevention Bill. SRPBA recognises that Scotland, as with the rest of the UK, needs to address the threat of changing and unpredictable climatic conditions with around 105,000 Scottish homes and businesses vulnerable to inland and coastal flooding. SRPBA also recognises that the Scottish Government needs to adopt the planned EC Directive on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks and this is best served through a range of responses to assist in the management of flood risk. SRPBA’s primary concern relating to flood management is the delivery of ‘soft’ engineering approaches. SRPBA believes that this is a useful tool which could assist in flood management, however, SRPBA concerns relates to implication and application of this approach. Impacts of Climate Change on flooding in Scotland It is widely believed that the weather conditions will bring more variable and unpredictable climatic conditions. SEPA have identified that approximately 78000 km2 or 6% of Scotland is floodplain land. Many of our richest arable lands lie within floodplains, therefore any increase in unpredictable weather patterns is likely to bring economic costs to the farming and wider community in these areas. Changes to existing legislation Flooding is currently covered by numerous pieces of primary and secondary legislation, much of which is now out of date. A move to reduce, simplify and consolidate existing legislation relating to catchment management would be welcome. A catchment management approach would appear to be a sensible direction for any new policy and SRPBA would encourage the government to work with those with riparian interests to achieve this. SRPBA would also encourage an incentive based rather than regulatory based approach to flood management as we believe this will achieve results more successfully Responsibility for flood management The current system of responsibility for flood management is confusing owing to the number of different agencies involved. SRPBA would however, encourage a thorough review of the existing system to establish the costs and benefits. It may be more cost effective to adjust the current system rather than creating another agency.

RAE/S3/08/3/11 Agenda item 1 Role of sustainable flood management Sustainable flood management is likely to play a significant role in flood management. This could range for initiatives from better planning of housing and developments to the implementation of ‘soft’ engineering approaches. The FIAC report state that soft engineering approaches could include e.g.,

• the re-establishment of meanders, • reversing upland drainage by blocking surface drains and ditches in

improved pasture and forest plantations, • reduction of grazing pressures to allow for an increase in general

ground ‘roughness’ • re-establishment of native tree cover in headwaters, • restoring and protecting watercourses that have deepened and

straightened, to slow the flow down the channel and increase the buffering of flows provided by vegetation, and

• re-establishing floodplain tree cover to slow down movement of water. Although these approaches may be an environmentally friendly alternative to large engineering projects such as pump stations or large scale sewage works these measures will impose long term economic costs on land managers. Land managers need to be given firm assurances that any changes to their practices which will result in economic loss but will bring benefits to wider society, will be;

• linked to income forgone, and • will be considered as a long term (30-50 years) financial commitment

by the government. SRPBA believes that the Government and the Industry can work together successfully to address the challenges posed by flooding and we would welcome any involvement in those discussions.

PIGS TOM EDWARDS

This briefing has been prepared for Members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. It briefly describes some of the main features of modern pig production, and includes some information on the size and production of the industry in Scotland, and the price for pigmeat.

SPICe briefing 31 January 2008 08/06

Source: Quality Meat Scotland (2008)

Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) Briefings are compiled for the benefit of the Members of the Parliament and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with MSPs and their staff who should contact Tom Edwards on extension 85198 or email [email protected]. Members of the public or external organisations may comment on this briefing by emailing us at [email protected]. However, researchers are unable to enter into personal discussion in relation to SPICe Briefing Papers. If you have any general questions about the work of the Parliament you can email the Parliament’s Public Information Service at [email protected]. Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in SPICe briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated or otherwise amended to reflect subsequent changes.

www.scottish.parliament.uk

1

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/

providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 2

KEY POINTS OF THIS BRIEFING • The UK is around 62% self sufficient in pigmeat. Virtually all imports come from other EU

Member States, particularly Denmark

• In Scotland pig farming is concentrated in the Northeast. In 2007, Scotland’s 40,150 breeding pigs produced 745,110 finished pigs. Breeding pig numbers have declined over the last 10 years

• Most of the production comes from large specialist pig farms – in 2006 83% of breeding

pigs were in 71 herds with 250 sows or more

• While the farmgate price and the retail price for pigmeat have kept broadly in step, for the last three years they have increased at a rate below the rate of general inflation

• Principally due to increased cereal prices, Scottish farmers have experienced an

increase in costs during 2007 which they have not been able to pass on via increased farmgate prices. This is affecting their profitability

INTRODUCTION Worldwide, more pigmeat is produced than any other kind of meat. The reasons for its popularity include its versatility – as well as being suited to being cooked fresh, it can also be conserved in a variety of ways. Pigs are omnivores and they are fundamentally different from the other species of farm livestock kept in Scotland in that they are not ruminants, and are therefore not capable of surviving on a grass based diet. Historically families would keep a pig as a way of turning waste or leftover food, or food by-products (e.g. whey) into a useful protein, and pigs are still kept in this way in many parts of the world. Many Scottish pig farmers are also arable farmers and use crops produced on their farms to feed to their pigs, while others are pig specialists, and rely on bought in feed. Pigs are fed on diets mainly consisting of vegetable protein (wheat and barley, but also imported soya meal and maize gluten). The other proteins pigs need for a complete diet are today met from synthetically synthesised amino acids, and to a lesser extent from fishmeal. Pigs used to be fed meat and bone meal. This practice has been banned in the EU since 1996 but pigs are still fed meat and bone meal in other countries. Depletion of industrial fish stocks and rising demand for fishmeal from aquaculture have led to rises in the price of fishmeal. Feed mills which make feeds for cattle and sheep cannot use fishmeal in pig feed mixes, because it is banned from cattle and sheep feeds and there is a risk of cross-contamination. This is not a problem for those pig farmers who mill their own feeds. Pig breeding companies have developed their own lines of pigs and breed replacement boars and gilts (female pigs which have not farrowed) which they sell to pig farmers. UK breeding companies have led the way, and these genetics have been exported around the world. Most pigs reared today are based on crosses between the Large White and the Landrace, sometimes with Saddleback or Duroc mixed in, especially for lines intended for outdoor rearing. Modern pigs have been selectively bred to have desirable carcass characteristics, essentially so that they can grow to higher weights without putting on as much fat. Over the last 30 years this selective breeding has allowed the backfat depth of a 100kg pig ready for slaughter to be halved. This has allowed the sale weight and marketing of pigs to be standardised. Previously


pigs were sold at different ages and weights depending on whether they were intended for e.g. fresh pork or bacon. The EU pig industry has never been eligible for support from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the same way as other farming sectors. The only support available has been a private storage mechanism, where gluts of pigmeat can be held in storage to hold up prices. However, this mechanism has been little used, and Europe’s pig farmers have been much more exposed to the vagaries of world market price changes than their counterparts producing beef or lamb have been. European consumers have demanded improvements in farm animal welfare, and this demand has been reflected in regulation. Particularly important for UK pig producers has been the decision taken by the UK government to ban the use of stalls and tethers in pig production from the 1 January 1999. Stalls and tethers were used to accommodate sows in between farrowings. The UK government chose to implement the EU legislation on stalls and tethers early, and an EU wide ban does not come into force until 2013. Many UK pig farmers feel that the extra costs they had to bear to adapt their buildings as a result of the ban placed them at a competitive disadvantage, as they have not been compensated by an increased price. Pig farms are also subject to environmental regulation. Pig farmers in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones are affected by the closed periods for slurry and manure applications. Manure management can be a challenge for pig farmers if they do not have much additional arable land, although many farmers will come to an agreement with neighbours who can benefit from the use of their manure as a fertiliser. Pollution prevention and control regulations also apply to pig farms which can house more than 750 sows. In 2006 the UK was 62% self sufficient in pigmeat. This compares to 89% for lamb, 81% for beef, and 87% for poultrymeat (DEFRA 2007a). The chart below shows the source of imports of pork to the UK in 2007. Fig 1 – Source of imports of pork to the UK 2007

BELGIUM11%

DENMARK40%

FRANCE8%

GERMANY13%

IRISH REPUBLIC9%

ITALY1%

NETHERLANDS12%

OTHERS2%

POLAND1%

SPAIN3%

Source: Quality Meat Scotland (2008)


THE PIG INDUSTRY IN SCOTLAND Scottish pig production is concentrated into the Northeast of the country, with a number of farms in the Southeast. Most pig farms are therefore close to the centres of cereal production. The June 2006 agricultural census showed that 68% of fattening pigs and 69% of breeding sows were kept in NE Scotland (Scottish Government 2007a). Nationally pigs were kept on 602 holdings for fattening, and 424 holdings for breeding (some holdings will both breed and fatten pigs). Most of the production comes from a smaller number of larger producers. At the June 2006 census: 98% of fattening pigs were kept on 198 holdings with more than 200 fattening pigs; and 83% of breeding pigs were kept in 71 herds with 250 sows or more (Scottish Government 2007a). There has been a decline in breeding pig numbers over the last ten years. Breeding pig numbers peaked at 73,810 in 1998, falling to 40,150 in 2007, a decline of 46% (Scottish Government 2007b). Fattening pig numbers have also fallen from 582,340 in June 1998 to 408,340 in June 2007, a decline of 30%. The higher pig numbers of the late 1990s may reflect a move into the industry by some farmers seeking to capitalise on the temporarily high pig prices following the worsening of the BSE crisis in 1996, which saw beef consumption being substituted by consumption of other meats. In June 1991 there were 51,720 breeding pigs and 429,630 fattening pigs. The value of finished pigs produced in Scotland has declined from £89m in 1997 to £57m in 2006. Total production for 2006 was 708,000 pigs and 57,700 tonnes of pigmeat, compared to 1.357m pigs and 94,800 tonnes in 1998 (Scottish Government 2007c). In 2007, Scottish pig farmers produced 745,110 finished pigs, an increase on 2006, when they produced 685,123 (Quality Meat Scotland 2008). In addition, Scottish farms produce around 20,000 cull sows per year. The table below shows the production that could be expected from a sow kept on a typical Scottish pig farm rearing piglets weaned at 4 weeks and then sold or transferred to a finishing unit at 12 weeks of age: Table 1 – Pig rearing figures on an average Scottish farm Litters / year 2.27 Live piglets / litter 11 Piglet mortality (%) 12.7 Weaners / litter 9.6 Pigs sold/ sow/year 21.27 Age at weaning (days) 27.3 Age at sale/transfer (days) 83 Sow:boar ratio 19 Proportion sow replaced annually (%) 47.05 Proportion boars replaced annually (%) 40 Annual feed use per sow/boar/gilt (tonnes) 1286 Total feed / sow / annum (kg) 2353 Total feed/ pig reared / annum (kg) 115 Sale value of weaner (£) 36 Gross margin / sow / year (£) 207 Sensitivity +/- £10/t in feed prices (£/sow /yr) +/- 22.42 Source: Scottish Agricultural College (2007)


The table below shows some typical production figures for a pig finishing unit taking weaned pigs and taking them on to bacon weight (95 kgs liveweight) Table 2 – Pig finishing figures on an average Scottish farm Liveweight at purchase / transfer (kg) 34 Liveweight at slaughter (kg) 95 Deadweight at slaughter (kg) 71 Killing out (%) 75 Total days 85 Throughput cycles / yr 4.1 Total feed (kg) 156 Sale price (p/kg deadweight) 109 £/head 77.39 Gross margin / pig 6.25 Gross margin / pig place / year 25.63 Sensitivity +/- £10/t feed prices (£ / pig place / yr) +/- 6.40 Source: Scottish Agricultural College (2007) The gross margin is the value of output minus variable costs such as feed, medicines etc. Before a producer can make a profit, fixed costs such as labour, buildings and infrastructure also have to be deducted. Table 1 above illustrates the sensitivity of gross margins of pig producers to increased feed prices. In the examples above, if the price of pig feed were to be increased by e.g. £50 per tonne, the gross margin per sow would more than halve to £95, and would be negative for finishing pigs. Information on the profitability of farms in Scotland is collected annually in the Farm Accounts Survey. The main figures produced by the survey are estimates of Net Farm Income (NFI) for different farm sectors. NFI is not the same as business profit, but comparing Net Farm Income from year to year gives an indication of the trend in profitability of farming. The results of the Scottish survey do not include pig farms as a separate category. The results of a similar survey in England do include pig farms as a separate category, and these are shown in the table. Table 3 - Net Farm Income of specialist pig farms in England from the results of the Farm Business Survey

Average Net Farm Income (£/farm)1997/98 14,400 1998/99 -40,000 1999/00 -10,900 2000/01 42,100 2001/02 21,600 2002/03 25,300 2003/04 34,400 2004/05 25,100 2005/06 29 0002006/07 24 500Source: DEFRA (2007b)


PRICES The table below shows the average prices farmers have received for pigmeat. Table 4 - Farmgate prices for pigs in Scotland and the UK 1997-2006 (£/ kg deadweight) Scotland (£/kg deadweight) GB (£/kg deadweight)

1997 1.091998 0.781999 0.742000 0.902001 0.932002 0.87 0.9432003 0.99 1.0402004 * 1.0382005 * 1.0382006 * 1.0492007 1.080

2008 (Jan) 1.105* data would be disclosive because of number of processors in Scotland after 2004. Sources: Scottish Government (2007c) & Quality Meat Scotland (2008). Figure 2 below shows an index of the retail price for pigmeat plotted alongside an index of the farmgate price GB pig producers have received, and the Retail Price Index (RPI). Figure 2 Index of GB farmgate and UK retail prices for pigmeat and the RPI 2002-07 (Jan 2002 =100)

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

Jan-0

2

Apr-02

Jul-0

2

Oct-02

Jan-0

3

Apr-03

Jul-0

3

Oct-03

Jan-0

4

Apr-04

Jul-0

4

Oct-04

Jan-0

5

Apr-05

Jul-0

5

Oct-05

Jan-0

6

Apr-06

Jul-0

6

Oct-06

Jan-0

7

Apr-07

Jul-0

7

Oct-07

RPI UK retail pigmeat GB farmgate pigmeat Sources: Quality Meat Scotland (2008) & National Statistics (2008)


Figure 2 shows that whilst the farmgate and retail prices for pigmeat have kept in step, in the last three years they have both increased at below the rate of general inflation. The major issue for Scottish pig farmers is that increases in their costs have not been passed on through increases in prices. The main elements of cost increases are increased cost of feed, resulting from increases in world cereal prices caused by shortage of supply, and increased cost of fuel, caused by increased oil prices. From January 2007 to January 2008 the average price of feed wheat went from £90/tonne to £170/tonne, and the price of feed barley went from £90/tonne to £155/tonne (Farmers Weekly 2008). The effect of this was compounded in 2007 when export and movement restrictions imposed as a result of Foot and Mouth disease caused a temporary glut in supply, which depressed prices towards the end of the year. A particular difficulty for Scottish pig farmers is that there is no facility for processing cull sows in Scotland. Both of the facilities in England which take them were affected by Foot and Mouth Disease movement restrictions. One facility was also affected by Bluetongue movement restrictions. This together with the closure of export markets which are particularly important for cull sows caused the price to fall from between 65 and 72 p/kg at the start of 2007 to around 40 p/kg. In some cases, sows could not be sold. Since export markets re-opened cull sow prices have recovered to about 65p/kg (Quality Meat Scotland 2008).

SOURCES DEFRA. (2007a) Agriculture in the United Kingdom. [Online]. Available at: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/default.asp DEFRA. (2007b) Farm Accounts in England 2006/07. [Online]. Available at: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/fab/2007/default.asp Farmers Weekly (January 2007 – January 2008) Surrey: Farmers Weekly group. National Statistics. (2008) Retail Prices Index: Monthly Index Numbers of Retail Prices 1948-2007. [Online]. Available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=229 Quality Meat Scotland. (2008) Personal Communication. [Unpublished] Scottish Agricultural College. (2007) The Farm Management Handbook 2007-08. Edinburgh: Scottish Agricultural College. Scottish Government. (2007a) Economic Report on Scottish Agriculture. 2006 edition. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/05/12103110/0 Scottish Government. (2007b) Final Results of the 2007 June Agricultural Census. [Online]. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/10/agriccensus2007 Scottish Government. (2007c) Scottish Agriculture - Output, Input and Income Statistics. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/03/28161150/4

http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/default.asp

http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/fab/2007/default.asp

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=229

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/05/12103110/0

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/10/agriccensus2007

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/03/28161150/4



BRIEFING FROM NFUS ON PIG INDUSTRY

PIG INDUSTRY CRISIS KEY POINTS 1. The Scottish pig industry is currently un-profitable due to increased

feed costs which retailers have been unwilling to absorb and the burden of new regulations. Losses have been exacerbated by the costs and market effects of Foot and Mouth Disease.

2. The Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs Committee can assist by:

• Pressing the Cabinet Secretary to investigate in Brussels the delivery of FMD compensation in the form of a sow headage payment;

• Supporting the First Minister in his initiative with supermarkets,

the aim being to redress issues relating to their treatment of suppliers;

• Pressing for a reduction in the burden of regulation, starting

before approval of new legislation. Background 3. The Scottish pig production industry forms an important part of Scottish

agriculture. In 2006 more than 56,000t of pigmeat were produced from 700,000 slaughter pigs with a carcase value of £134m. In comparison, Scottish lamb volume and value that year was 30,000t and £89 million, respectively.

4. Exports of Scottish pork are negligible but there is a higher degree of

added value through processing into bacon, sausages, puddings and ready meals than in the other red meat sectors. Sows at the end of their productive life (cull sows) are exported to mainland Europe. Scottish pig abattoirs create direct employment for around 1,600 people.

5. The breeding herd stands at just under 40,000. This is significantly

down from the peak of almost 74,000 in 1998. Efficiency gains have partially offset declining numbers.

6. The industry is highly integrated with some primary production

operated directly by the main processor, Grampian Country Food Group. Members of two farmer co-operative groups produce almost all the remaining pigs reared in Scotland.


7. The Scottish Pig Industry Initiative of the early 1990’s, now

incorporated into Quality Meat Scotland (QMS), was the first quality assurance scheme for pigmeat in Europe. Virtually all Scottish pig production is quality-assured.

8. The Scottish industry has also been at the forefront in terms of pig

health and welfare. Scottish pigs have a much lower incidence of salmonella than in the rest of the UK and a higher proportion of Scottish pigs are kept outdoors than in other parts of the UK.

9. Scottish pig producers do not receive direct payments. Support

measures, when applied, are indirect. These include Private Storage Aid, available briefly in late-2007 and Export refunds, currently available.

Regulatory Pressures 10. The UK pig industry has been significantly disadvantaged for the past 9

years due to the unilateral banning of sow stalls. What was predicted to be a short-lived disadvantage continues as sow stalls will continue to be permitted in the rest of Europe until 2013. Even when the EU ban comes into force producers outside the UK will still be permitted to keep sows in stalls during the early part of pregnancy.

11. The results in the market place have been clear. In the years leading

up to 1999 the UK was a net exporter of pigmeat. Since then our pork export surplus of more than 150,000 tonnes per year has become a deficit of over 200,000 tonnes.

12. Last year all larger pig units (along with poultry units) came under the

EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive. The immediate impact has been that producers have had to pay application and subsistence fees running to several thousand pounds per pig unit. More serious are potential upgrade implications in order to meet ‘Best Available Techniques’ which do not take cost into account.

13. Also late last year amendments to NVZ rules were notified to Brussels.

NFUS has been highly critical of these measures which we do not believe are scientifically valid. They are, however, expected to impose high costs, as many farmers will have to replace slurry stores to account for longer periods when this material cannot be applied to land.

Feed Costs 14. Year-on-year grain stocks have been reducing so that they no longer

provide an effective buffer against seasonal effects. Poor harvests in major exporting countries in 2007 plus increased demand in the developing world resulted in unprecedented increases in grain prices.


UK - Delivered Feed Wheat Prices

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 3

week

£/t

200720062005

15. Feed costs make up approximately 80% of the variable costs of

finishing pigs, and about 50% of the total costs. Therefore the pig sector is particularly badly affected when feed prices rise without a corresponding increase in pig prices. The impact of high grain prices has been felt across Europe. In response, many producers have sold off breeding stock and young pigs intended for breeding. This has caused a glut on the market which retailers have taken advantage of to hold prices down.

16. Action has been taken in Brussels to alleviate high feed prices.

However the Home-Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA) has commented that: “With regard to increasing imports, the (impact of) duty suspension remains questionable since the very high cereal prices have kept import duties at comparatively low levels this season, which have already boosted imports. One has also to bear in mind that supplies are scarce world-wide and freight costs are very high at the moment, all adding to the cost of imports.” The Commission has also tried to speed up the process of approvals for importation, as feed, of new Genetically modified maize varieties. Without this, non-segregated bulks from the U.S. could not be imported. The impact of this in the U.K. will be very limited, as most U.K. retailers will not buy home-produced pigmeat from pigs fed with GM crops.

17. Currently, data from HGCA shows that the 4-week average delivered

feed wheat price has risen week-on-week for the past 6 weeks reaching £173.5/t, 78% higher than a year ago. As a result costs of production are up by around £21/pig.

Impact of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) 18. Movement and export restrictions from the Surrey FMD outbreaks

caused a backlog of finished pigs and cull sows on Scottish farms. In August, reacting to uncertainty over when slaughtering would resume


in England, retailers increased orders for imported pigmeat. This prevented the backlog of pigs in Scotland from being cleared. The complete closure of the export market for cull sows caused a collapse in prices. It also allowed the market for our cull sows to be taken by surplus sows coming from downsizing units on the continent. Backlogged pigs had to be fed with increasingly expensive feed and they grew beyond the contracted weight bands, resulting in price deductions.

19. Other costs were also incurred, including disinfectants to protect

against the spread of disease and veterinary inspections required before pigs could be moved. These direct costs and market impacts, totalling almost £5.2 million, were fully set out in a paper for Cabinet Secretary Richard Lochhead, produced by the staff of the Scottish Government Rural Directorate and assisted by NFU Scotland. The purpose of this paper was to establish the scale of Government assistance that would be necessary to compensate producers for losses and costs resulting from the release of FMD at Pirbright.

Pig Prices 20. Producer pig prices have been relatively stable over recent years

staying between 100-110p/kg deadweight, and most retailers have been willing to pay a small premium for British stalls- & tethers-free pigmeat. Even before 2007 however pressure had been exerted to reduce this premium and the catering trade has been happy to buy imported pigmeat which does not meet UK welfare standards.

21. Despite much higher production costs, prices for pigs, reflected by the

Deadweight Average Pig Price, have only moved up from 2006 by an average of 2.46p/kg (2.2%). This is just £1.75 per finished pig. On the spot market, the average price for pigmeat calculated on the same basis is down by 13.2p/kg (12%) or £9.37/pig. The backlog of pigs has allowed processors to buy more pigs at the cheaper spot market prices than would normally be available. It is clear that any increase in pig prices has been dwarfed by higher feed costs.

Scottish Government Action 22. To date the Scottish Government has provided additional funding for

QMS to help to overcome the impact of FMD. This is most welcome. 23. NFUS has also appreciated the intervention of the Scottish

Government in producing the November 2007 paper setting out the case for FMD compensation for the sector. What is needed now, however, is for that package to be put into place without further delay. In particular, we believe that discussions should take place with Brussels officials to clear the way for a headage payment of around £115 per sow.


24. The problem of excess retailer power remains unresolved. It is does

not make sense that taxpayers should have to pay the costs of Private Storage Aid and Export Refunds when instead retailers should simply pay a price that properly reflects costs of production. Continuing involvement by the Scottish Government is needed to achieve a better balance.

25. Greater action is also needed to reduce the burden of regulation. This

needs to start in Brussels, heading off the type of ill-considered inflexible legislation that is making European farming un-competitive. Regulation should be based on real science, not assumptions. At home, enforcing agencies need to adopt more of a risk-based approach to regulation. In particular, the number and frequency of on-farm inspections must be minimised. The Scottish Government needs to scrutinise more closely the activities of agencies such as SEPA to ensure that the costs they pass on to farmers are fully justified.

22 January 2008



EXTRACT FROM

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE’S 3RD REPORT, 2008 The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2007 (SI 2007/draft) – The Subordinate Legislation Committee asked the Scottish Government to clarify five points relating to the instrument and was satisfied with the explanation provided for all but one of them. The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered that there appears to be an unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the parent statute on point (d). An extract from the report is included below: 1. On 15 January 2008, the Committee asked the Scottish Government––

(d) to clarify whether paragraph 22(1) of Part 5 of Schedule 3 is intended to have the effect that a buyer of milk from a producer commits an offence if they do not notify the Board of the amount of milk purchased that month immediately at the end of the month, or whether it is intended that some period of days of breach is required before an offence is committed. If the requirement is immediate, to clarify by what means a buyer should notify this information immediately at the end of each month; and

Point (d)

10. The response from the Government (see Appendix 1) confirms that the intention is that the buyer must notify the relevant details immediately at the end of each month, or potentially may be liable for the offence. However, the Committee notes that the reply also confirms that as a matter of practice, the individual circumstances of non-notification would be considered before any decision to prosecute for the offence would be taken.

11. The Committee assumes that in relation to offences that would be committed and prosecuted in Scotland, the Scottish Government Justice Directorate and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (as appropriate) would be considering and would require to consent to these provisions, as part of the requirement that Scottish Ministers consent to the Order after Parliamentary approval.

12. Given that the potential offence relates to the amount of milk purchased to the end of each month, the Committee considers that the requirement to notify the details to the Board immediately at the end of each month appears to be an unusual requirement for milk buyers from producers. There will be a very brief time to notify details before an offence is potentially committed, depending on when milk is purchased during a month. Where milk is purchased on the last day of a month, the requirement to notify the details of the total amount purchased must be implemented on that last day, or there is the potential for an offence to be prosecuted. The Committee notes that by article 16 of the Order, a person liable for the offence is liable on summary


conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (a maximum of £5,000).

13. The response from the Government has confirmed that the intention is that the buyer must notify the relevant details immediately at the end of each month, or potentially may be liable for the offence. However, the Committee has considered that the framing of the requirement in paragraph 22 of Schedule 3 to the Order in terms that it requires to be implemented simply “at the end of every month” has a potential to raise doubt as to exactly what period is permitted to milk buyers in which they should implement the requirement on pain of the offence. The Committee considers that this provision is not consistent with the general principles that when creating an offence, it should be clear (a) what constitutes the offence, (b) who is liable for breaching it, and (c) what are the penalties for breach. It considers that this paragraph meets the last 2 of these requirements, but it is doubtful whether it meets the first. The Committee also had significant concerns that, in relation to the intention of the Government as confirmed in the reply, that buyers must notify the relevant details immediately at the end of each month––

(a) depending on the circumstances, this may not permit buyers a reasonable or proper time to implement the requirements each and every month, on pain of the offence;

(b) it appears the intended policy is to recognise that delay in certain circumstances will be justified – if so those circumstances or period of delay could have been specified in the Order; and

(c) the provision does not specify any required method of notification, or requirement for proof of receipt after notification.

14. Accordingly, the Committee could not rule out both the possibility that this could inhibit prosecutions for the offence, and the possibility that persons may not be clear from this provision what behaviour is unlawful.

15. Accordingly, the Committee considers that this has a potential to lead to an inconsistent approach to prosecutions for the offence between different areas or circumstances. This is also inferred from the response offered by the Government, that individual circumstances of non-compliance would require to be taken into account. The Committee’s view is that it is not desirable to frame the offence provision in terms that involve potential legal liability to prosecution, but that whether an offence is prosecuted depends on certain individual circumstances that are not further set out in the provision.

16. Members of the Committee suggested at its meeting that, in light of the terms of the response, it would be appropriate for the Government to confirm that persons would not be prosecuted for an offence under this provision, in circumstances where a person had a reasonable excuse for a failure to comply with the requirements of this provision.


17. The Committee considers that the enabling powers extend to the creation of offences in this situation. However, the Committee considers that the approach intended by the Government – that the requirement must be implemented immediately at the end of each and every month, to notify the amount of milk bought that month – appears to be an unusual or unexpected exercise of the enabling powers to constitute the offence. It requires immediate notification. However the policy intention is that individual circumstances may be taken into account. This implies a recognition that extra time may in certain circumstances may justifiable. There has been an unusually restrictive exercise of the power in failing to specify those circumstances or specifying a fixed period within which notification is to be given.

21. The Committee draws this instrument to the attention of the lead committee and Parliament on the grounds that––

(d) in relation to paragraph 22(1) of Part 5 of Schedule 3, there appears to be an unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the parent statute

Extract from Appendix 1

The fourth question 5. In paragraph 22(1) of Part 5 of Schedule 3 to the Order, the offence provided for is non-notification by the end of the month. It is a matter for the buyer of milk to decide how notification is made. The individual facts of each circumstance of non-notification would be taken into account before any decision to prosecute would be taken.

The Quality Meat Scotland Order 2008 (SSI 2008/draft) – The Subordinate Legislation Committee asked the Scottish Government to clarify two questions relating to the instrument and was satisfied with the explanation provided for one of them. The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered that on question (a) there is a doubt as to whether paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 is intra vires. An extract from the report is included below: 22. On 15 January the Committee asked the Scottish Government the following questions––

(a) to explain where the power to create the offence referred to in paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 is derived from;

23. The Scottish Government’s response is at Appendix 2.

Question (a)

24. The Committee had noted that paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 creates an offence of knowingly failing to place these levies into an individual bank


account where they are identified as being held in trust for Quality Meat Scotland.

25. However, it did not appear to the Committee that this offence fell into any of the categories of offence provided for in the parent Act (paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 10 to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (“NERC”) as follows––

(a) failing to comply with a requirement relating to registration;

(b) obstructing an authorised exercising a power of entry;

(c) failing to comply with a requirement to provide information or produce documents;

(d) neglecting or failing to comply with a requirement to attend to give evidence;

(e) providing false or misleading information to [QMS] or an authorised officer.

26. The Committee notes that the Government response states that the provision creating the offence in paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 is made in reliance on the power in section 97(1) of NERC to include supplementary provision in an Order.

27. Section 97(1) is a standard supplementary and incidental power which provides: “An order under this Chapter may include supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving provision.” The Committee does not consider that the creation of an offence, which is not provided for in the parent Act, is a provision which is supplementary to the provisions of NERC. “Supplementary” would relate to filling in details or “machinery” for which the Act itself does not provide.

28. Furthermore, the Committee observes that in general, there is a strong presumption against the creation of offences by subordinate legislation (in the absence of such a power in an Act of Parliament or express provision in the enabling provision permitting the creation of offences) which is rebuttable only be express provision or clear inference.

29. In this instance, the Committee considers that there is nothing to suggest that, in passing NERC, the UK Parliament intended to authorise the creation of criminal offences as sanctions for failure by slaughterers or exporters to place levies into an individual bank account which is identified as being held in trust for QMS. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 to NERC provides for particular types of offences that may be created by an Order establishing a body such as QMS which does not include the offence created by paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to these Regulations. Furthermore, the creation of this offence does not appear to the Committee to be necessary to implement the provisions in NERC. In the circumstances, the Committee does not consider


that the creation of the offence in paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 is a supplementary provision that can be made in reliance upon the general power in section 97(1). In the circumstances therefore, the Committee considers that there is a doubt as to whether paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 is intra vires.

33. The Committee draws this instrument to the attention of lead committee and Parliament on the grounds that––

(a) there is doubt as to whether paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 is intra vires

Extract from Appendix 2 Question (a) 8. The provision creating an offence in paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 is made in reliance on the power in section 97(1) of the Act to include supplementary provision in an order.



CORRESPONDENCE ON THE SHEEP AND GOATS (IDENTIFICATION AND TRACEABILITY) (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 2007 (SSI

2007/559)

LETTER FROM CONVENER TO CABINET SECRETARY

Thank you for your letter of 16 January about the above instrument, which was circulated for consideration by the Committee at its meeting yesterday. Also circulated was correspondence with Jim McLaren, President of the National Farmers Union Scotland, a copy of which is attached.1 At yesterday’s meeting, members noted clear discrepancies between your evidence and that of the NFUS. Firstly, your letter repeats the claim made in the RIA that the overall cost burden on the industry will be reduced from approximately £1.8 million to £1.55 million per annum, whereas Mr McLaren believes this figure is based on erroneous assumptions and that the correct figure will be nearer to £1.86 million. Secondly, your letter says that you have “worked closely” with NFUS and other industry stakeholders in developing the double tagging system; however, Mr McLaren says that neither the NFUS nor (to his knowledge) any of its members were consulted on the likely cost implications during preparation of the RIA. Mr McLaren also raises the related issue of the electronic identification (EID) system that the European Commission is proposing for the near future. The NFUS believes that such a system will be “completely unworkable” in a Scottish sheep-farming context, without offering any additional disease control or food safety benefits. It sets out three conditions for the forthcoming field trial of EID that is planned in Scotland. It would be useful to know what the Scottish Government’s general attitude is towards the proposed EID legislation and whether it agrees with the NFUS’s conditions for trialling EID in Scotland. The Committee has agreed to report to the Parliament on this instrument. As you know, such a report must be agreed within the 40-day period for Parliamentary scrutiny, which ends on 6 February (the date of the Committee’s next meeting). In order to enable your reply to be reflected in the draft report being prepared for that meeting, I would be grateful if it could be received no later than noon on Wednesday 30 January. Roseanna Cunningham MSP Convener 24 January 2008

1 Not reproduced here. The NFUS letter was circulated for the last meeting and is available in the papers for that meeting on the Committee’s web-pages.

1


LETTER FROM CABINET SECRETARY TO CONVENER Thank you for your letter of 24 January allowing me to comment on concerns expressed by the National Farmers Union of Scotland (NFUS), some of which are in relation to the Regulatory Impact Assessment (“RIA”) which accompanies the above instrument. The NFUS cast doubt over two specific estimates in the RIA, leading them to believe that the RIA under-estimates the overall cost of implementing a double tagging system by approximately 20%. Their first concern relates to associated labour costs and, whilst I can accept that there will be some variance in labour costs depending on the source of information, the key point to make is that the costs in the RIA were used mainly as a basis for comparison between the previous derogated system and the new one. On this basis, applying a £10 an hour labour cost as indicated by the NFUS in place of the £8.50 per hour labour cost in the RIA (taken from figures provided by ADAS as part of the UK EID evidence report to the Commission) the total cost of applying the new system for Industry would rise to a figure of £1.66 million – an increase of just over 7% from the original RIA. By comparison, the total cost of applying the old derogated system would also increase to a new figure of £1.9 million – an increase of just over 5.5% which, when subtracted from each other, still provides for a very similar difference in costs between the two systems of approximately £250K. Therefore, variance in labour costs aside, the new system will result in a slight decrease to the Industry as a whole which is an important factor. With regards to the specific figures used, the RIA uses a figure of £8.50 which is seen as a fair indication of labour costs. The Scottish Government’s Economic Report on Scottish Agriculture 2007 edition (based on farm survey results) quotes a £7.20 figure and the Agricultural Wages board sets minimum rates of £5.96 for agricultural wages (from 1 October 2007). My officials have also spoken to QMS who have confirmed that their figure of £10 is based on a per ewe ratio within entire sheep enterprises, that covers total farm labour costs, and they do not have an average hourly paid rate figure. Therefore, with this in mind, £8.50 is believed to be a fair estimate. Secondly the NFUS letter also mentions that approximately half of the Scottish lamb crop is destined for export in Europe and therefore these animals will have to be double tagged. This is simply not correct. Whilst it is true that all live animals for export require to be double tagged regardless of their age, as has been the case for several years, figures show that in 2006 approximately 13,500 lambs were certified for export from Scotland to other Member States for finishing and none in 2007 due to FMD restrictions. Based on a lamb crop of approximately 3.7 million animals this equates to less than 0.5% of the entire lamb crop, and therefore does not significantly impact on the RIA figures. Based on the information above, the figures in the RIA are still believed to provide balanced figures to estimate the Industry cost for applying the new system. As mentioned previously, the key thing to note however is that the figures used provide

2


a basis for comparison. My officials will contact the NFUS and offer them the opportunity to go through the RIA in detail to explain these calculations and to clarify any further queries that they may have. This will build upon previous discussions held with the NFUS where they helped determine figures used in the RIA, particularly relating to the typical examples of farms. As noted by you the NFUS have also used their letter to express concerns they have over the introduction of Electronic Identification (EID), an issue related, but not connected to this SSI. We acknowledge that the implementation of EID will be challenging for the Scottish Industry, which is why the Scottish Government and other UK departments, along with Industry, lobbied the Commission for the longest possible deferment on the introduction of EID. Although this lobbying helped secure an extension to the original implementation date of 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2009 we are still aware that there is much work to be done on this issue to help find a workable and affordable system for Scotland. We have also asked the Commission to revise its impact assessment, taking account of the cost to Industry and enforcement bodies, and the impact that the EU Regulation will have on the competitiveness of the EU sheep and goat Industry. This is to confirm, before entry into force of EID, whether the objectives of the Regulation are being met in the most cost effective way. The joint Scottish Government/Industry EID working group (of which the NFUS are members) is currently looking at the issues that still have to be resolved in relation to cost and technology. In particular there are issues with recording high volume movements such as at markets and we will continue to take views of the NFUS and all Industry stakeholders to look at the options available to us to ensure that we do what we can do limit the impact on sheep keepers. We will use the evidence gathered to take to EU working groups where we will try to negotiate the best possible system, including exemptions procedures, for the introduction of EID across the UK. The Committee may wish to note that the issues that have been highlighted by our working group are similar to those faced by Industry across the UK. Finally we fully welcome the resources that the NFUS are contributing to this area of work and look forward to continuing to work with them along with all Industry stakeholders in the coming months. I trust this letter provides reassurance to the Committee on the concerns raised by the NFUS. Richard Lochhead MSP Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment 30 January 2008

3



CORRESPONDENCE FROM CABINET SECRETARY TO CONVENER REGARDING THE QUALITY MEAT SCOTLAND ORDER 2008

I am writing in response to questions from the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, at the debate on 23 January 2008, regarding the Quality Meat Scotland Order 2008. The Committee asked about the steps taken to decide on the creation of a new Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB). The process towards NDPB status began with the Radcliffe Review of the Agricultural and Horticultural Levy Bodies which reported in October 2005. The report acknowledged that it was for Scottish Ministers to decide whether Quality Meat Scotland (QMS) should be a part of what is now the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board structure or whether other arrangements should be made. In a consultation on the Radcliffe Review that issued in November 2005, the industry was invited to comment on whether QMS should be a part of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board structure or whether it should be established as an NDPB. The idea of QMS as an NDPB was welcomed by all the main players in the red meat sector who responded to the consultation. In late 2006, the decision was taken to establish QMS as an NDPB. I was not party to the discussions of the previous administration but NDPB status was the only practical option to ensure a stable future for QMS, retain accountability to Scottish Ministers and protect the distinctiveness of the Scottish red meat sector. I therefore continued on this basis. The Committee also asked the exact status of QMS staff following the transfer to an NDPB. QMS staff will remain as employees of QMS. They will be NDPB staff (not civil servants in the Scottish Government) and will contribute to the overall size of the public sector in Scotland. Richard Lochhead, MSP Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment 29 January 2008

1

RAE/S3/08/3/19 For information


LETTER FROM CONVENER TO CABINET SECRETARY ON FLOODING AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT

The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee held a further evidence session on Wednesday 23 January 2008 as part of its ongoing flooding and flood management inquiry. As I explained in my letter of 14 January 2008, the Committee plans to write to you after each evidence session if relevant issues have emerged during the course of the evidence session. At the 23 January meeting1, the Committee took evidence from Professor David Crichton of the Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre and representatives of Scottish Water including its chairman, Ronnie Mercer. Five issues emerged during the course of the evidence that the Committee agreed to write to you about. The first issue relates to pluvial flooding which had such a devastating effect in England last summer. Scottish Water told the Committee that although it was widely acknowledged that modelling of potential pluvial flooding would be highly advantageous (as has been done be done for fluvial and coastal flooding), there were no plans for such work to be undertaken. Given the evidence that the Committee has already heard about the likely increase in the frequency of intense rainfall that can lead to pluvial flooding, it would be helpful if you could let the Committee know whether the Scottish Government had any plans to instigate such work. The second issue arises from Professor Crichton’s evidence where he suggested that SEPA’s existing responsibilities under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 to prevent the modification of rivers and lochs were potentially in conflict with effective flood management. Professor Crichton suggested that, under future precipitation regimes, river flows were likely to be greater and therefore modification of rivers would become more essential to manage flood risk. The Committee would welcome your views on whether you recognise this conflict of interest and whether you consider that the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 regime will require any adjustment. I would imagine that the Committee may also want to ask SEPA for its response to Professor Crichton’s suggestion. Thirdly, the Committee discussed the potential of a storm surge in the Firth of Forth with Professor Crichton. The potential socio-economic impacts would seem to be significant for Scotland given the large concentration of critical infra-structure below the 5 metre contour in the upper part of the Firth of Forth. The Committee would be interested to know whether the Scottish Government has made a risk assessment of a storm surge in the Forth and whether this has been considered in emergency planning exercises. Professor Crichton also outlined a potential barrage across the Forth to protect against storm surges which could also act as an alternative crossing point. The Committee would be interested to know whether the Scottish Government has considered the possibility of such a barrage.

1 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/rae/or-08/ru08-0201.htm

1

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/rae/or-08/ru08-0201.htm


The fourth issue raised related to data on flood damage costs. Professor Crichton suggested that the Scottish Government still used data from Middlesex University to assess the cost of flood damage rather than what he viewed as the more extensive data held by the University of Dundee (which includes Scottish and Welsh data in addition to data from England and also takes into account intangible losses). The Committee would be interested to hear the Scottish Government’s rationale for the use of the Middlesex University data as opposed to that held by the University of Dundee. The final issue relates to flooding that could be caused by a catastrophic dam failure. From the evidence provided by Professor Crichton and Scottish Water, it is not clear who has access to information about the areas that are at risk of flooding from a dam failure and what information is shared with local authorities and what information is made publicly available. Scottish Water will be writing to the Committee setting out their position but it would be instructive for the Committee if the Scottish Government could explain what requirements there are for sharing of information regarding potential flooding from dam failures. I look forward to receiving your response. Roseanna Cunningham Convener 29 January 2008

2



AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES COUNCIL: 21-22 JANUARY 20081

1. At its meeting on 23 January 2008, the Committee asked for further information on the outcome of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting held on 21-22 January 2008.

2. The Council met under the chairmanship of Mr Iztok Jarc, the Slovenian Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Food. The United Kingdom was represented by Hilary Benn, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Two key areas discussed of interest to the Committee were cross-compliance and the CAP Health Check2.

3. The Council reached unanimous agreement on proposed simplified rules for cross-compliance. The simplified rules aim to reduce administrative burden by setting a de minimis sum below which member states can elect not to charge providing that remedial action is taken and allowing a degree of tolerance for minor infringements. In addition, there are changes to prevent duplicate claims being made for the same land and to regarding liability for cross compliance where there is transfer of ownership. Finally, it will be possible for new member states to have three year phasing-in period for cross-compliance.

4. The Council also held a policy debate on CAP Health Check. There is now a clear timetable for the progress of the Health Check. Further discussions will take place at the February Council meeting and the Slovenian Presidency hopes that the Council will draw some conclusions at its March meeting with the Commission presenting its legislative proposals on 20 May 2008 with the hope that final agreement can be reached in November 2008.

5. With regard to the CAP Health Check , one source suggests that—

“It appears that the two issues causing the most fuss are the Commission’s suggestions to introduce a progressive reduction in single farm payments to larger farms (inaccurately referred to as capping) and to increase the rate of compulsory modulation (which again would only affect larger farms), in both cases with the additional funds going to Pillar 2 rural development measures. At the same time, Ministers were clearly taken by the emphasis on risk management and safety nets in the Commission Communication and called for more specific proposals in this area.”3

1 Full details are available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/agricult/98248.pdf2 Other areas discussed were the school fruit scheme, the EU-Mauritania agreement and the World Trade Organisation. 3 http://caphealthcheck.eu/

1

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/agricult/98248.pdf

http://caphealthcheck.eu/



AGRICULTURE SEMINAR, 29 JANUARY

Context

1. The Scottish Government organised an Agriculture Policy seminar in Peebles on 29 January, to which Committee members were invited, along with a wide range of other industry stakeholders.

2. The purpose of the seminar was to stimulate discussion on the following issues:

• CAP reform – in particular the “Health Check”

• profitable food production

• climate change.

3. The morning session (on the first two of these topics) consisted of presentations from the platform, while most of the afternoon session (on climate change) involved discussions in small workshop groups, facilitated by members of the Scottish Government’s Climate Change and Agriculture stakeholder group.

4. The Deputy Convener, John Scott MSP, attended the seminar, together with the Clerk (Andrew Mylne) and SPICe researcher (Tom Edwards).

Introduction – Richard Lochhead MSP

5. The Cabinet Secretary said that agriculture could contribute to all the strategic objectives of the Scottish Government (SG) – for example, by contributing to a better diet for Scots, and playing a role in tackling climate change. Agriculture’s main role was to produce food, and here there was room for optimism in the context of growing world demand resulting from rising populations and a trend towards higher rates of meat and milk consumption in India, China and elsewhere. The increasing demands for biofuels was also a factor, contributing to higher grain prices. Security of food supply was important, but the aim was not “self-sufficiency”. The SRDP would be used to move Scottish agriculture closer to the European model of agriculture as contributing to environmental protection, animal welfare and healthy rural communities.

6. In order to engage constructively with CAP reform, the SG was working with DEFRA on the UK negotiating position, and a stakeholder group had been established to focus on the Health Check.

7. The Commission’s proposals for a flatter system of single farm payments presented some problems, given that SFPs are currently made on a historic basis, and given the wide variations in the Scottish farming industry. There was also concern that proposals for upper and lower limits on support payments could be bureaucratic and could prompt some farm businesses to divide themselves into smaller units to avoid losing out. A related issue was to protect the Scottish Beef Calf Scheme, which provided support to the industry and protected the environment. The SG was also wary of proposals to increase compulsory modulation rates, on the grounds that the additional funds could end up going to

1


newer Member States; but there were other uses that it would support (e.g. sharing costs of animal health measures). In relation to the proposed abolition of set-aside, the aim would be to find a new way to preserve the environmental benefits it had brought.

8. The SG was keen to promote quality local food throughout Scotland, and had recently launched a discussion paper on a National Food Strategy. An indicative statement on the strategy would be made at the Royal Highland Show in June.

9. On climate change, it was striking that the growing season was now a month longer than in 1961 and there were 27 fewer days of frost per year; but rainfall would become higher overall and more unpredictable. The priority was a strategy for adaptation, together with seeing what contribution the sector can make to mitigation.

10. The Cabinet Secretary was keen to have a more strategic approach to its engagement with stakeholders, and would therefore be establishing a new Rural Development Council, with a remit broad enough to bring together those with interests in agriculture, rural development and climate change. Smaller groups would be established within this structure to take forward thinking on specific problems, and there would be greater use of seminars and conferences to get feedback from individuals.

Jim McLaren (President, NFU Scotland): CAP reform – an agricultural perspective

11. The CAP appeared to be going “full circle” – from a post-WW2 focus on food production, various reforms including “decoupling” had resulted in the main driver now being the market. As well as the global context referred to by the Cabinet Secretary (population growth and greater affluence, biofuels), third countries were also now restricting exports to increase supply for their home markets, and keep prices down. The priority for Scotland was to avoid allowing our own production to fall on the assumption that shortfalls can always be made up from imports. In the context of food security, it was notable that grain stocks were now at a historic low, despite high levels of production.

12. The other key contextual factor was the big recent rises in feed and fuel costs, and fertiliser costs. These were hitting farmers, who were unable to pass the additional costs further along the supply chain.

13. For the NFUS, the main Health Check issues were:

• milk quotas

• set-aside – the 0% rate and later abolition were welcome, but it was recognised that there had been environmental side-benefits that were worth preserving in other ways

• capping – which NFUS opposed, seeing no evidence that the last euro of support delivered less than the first

2


• modulation – where it was vital to ensure that any increases in compulsory

modulation were matched by decreases in voluntary modulation, something that would create more of a level playing field with other Member States.

14. The NFUS wanted to see a CAP that delivered:

• secure supplies of safe and high-quality food

• a managed countryside and environment

• vibrant rural communities and industries

• transparency and justifiability of public expenditure

15. This would involve providing support to active farmers, recognising differing costs in different areas, and with profitability (net of subsidy) as the underlying aim. Direct Community support was also needed for “non-market goods”.

16. There were three main scenarios for agriculture by 2013 – the status quo, a situation of increasing import penetration and downward pressure on prices, and an “ideal scenario” of increased demand for food and rising prices. But the CAP would be required on any of these scenarios – even on the last one, farmers would want at least a decade of profitability before they would be confident without support.

17. In the longer term (beyond the Health Check) the NFUS wanted to see a move away from the historic basis for farm support, but with a managed transition to any new system to ensure a “soft landing” for farmers whose circumstances would be most different under new arrangements. There was a need for research on the costs of delivering the non-market goods (environmental, social) that farming provides and that should be the basis for support payments in the longer term. Whatever the system, “activity” should be the main basis for payments.

Stuart Housden (Director, RSPB Scotland): CAP reform – an environmental perspective

18. For the RSPB, the key questions were: what are the public paying for through CAP support, and what do we get for it (is it justified)? In Mr Housden’s view, the CAP had failed the environment and was failing farmers and crofters.

19. He said birds were a good indicator of the general health of the natural environment, and there was a steady downward trend in bird numbers especially during the 1980s. But where farmers were given the resources to deliver, they could play a major part in arresting the decline – an example being the way the corncrake in Scotland had recovered, despite continuing decline elsewhere in Europe.

20. Mr Housden presented some figures which divided receipts from the CAP in different Member States by the area farmed. The UK was near the bottom of the EU scale for the level of direct payments, and Scotland was at the bottom within the UK – e.g. for Pillar 1, the Scottish rate was around €120/ha compared with €250/ha in England, while for Pillar 2 the Scottish rate was around €11/ha

3


compared with the overall UK level of €20/ha (and with the top four Member States at over €150/ha).

21. The distribution of “high nature value farmland” in the EU showed a high concentration in Scotland (with over half the UK total).

22. The CAP was under threat, with moves to divert some of the current €46bn of funding for other purposes within the EU budget. For example, €1.54bn of CAP underspend had recently been diverted to the Galileo space programme.

23. What was needed was a sustainable land management policy for Europe. This would recognise that farming is different from other industries because of the contribution it can make to a range of other goods such as flood management, wildlife protection and tourism. The aim should be gradual replacement of the CAP with this new approach, with a transition period used to prepare the sector for the changes ahead. The industry needed to be pro-active and not repeat the approach of the past (fighting a rearguard action to protect what it had).

24. For the Health Check, the issues for the RSPB were:

• set-aside – finding ways to preserve the environmental benefits

• modulation – boosting Pillar 2 payments, while ensuring funds weren’t diverted elsewhere

• single farm payments – finding a new basis for support, to replace historic payments

• capping – resisting this in the absence of a clear rationale

• cross-compliance – ensuring it is meaningful

• rural development measures – need to be strengthened

Frank Gaskell (Head of International Affairs, Highlands & Islands Enterprise): CAP reform – a rural development perspective

25. Mr Gaskell saw no discernible connection between the Health Check and an economic perspective on rural development. In particular, there was no recognition of Axis 3 (non-farm rural development – diversification, micro-enterprises, village renewal, tourism etc.). Modulation was sometimes seen as “robbing Peter to pay Paul” but this didn’t acknowledge that farmers themselves need thriving rural communities to live and work in. It was a matter of concern that the OECD and others were suggesting a future for rural areas without farming, imagining they can survive solely on a service-provision basis.

26. There was an important underlying EU policy context. The main features of this were a reform of the overall budget process, and a move towards “territorial cohesion” – the principle that all citizens should have the same entitlements to services and life-chances wherever they live – as a basis for all policies. In both areas, a “no taboos” approach was being suggested, which implied that there could be radical proposals to come. DG Agriculture, in particular, would be expected to show that CAP reform complied with the new “territorial cohesion”

4


approach. The Health Check was due to be signed off by Member States during the French presidency (June – December 2008).

27. An agricultural activity study for 2003-06 had shown net losses of 249,000 sheep in Scotland (18% of the total flock) and 2,000 cows (but a net loss of 6,000 cows in the H&I area). A 2007 update showed further losses of 112,000 sheep (3.84%) in Scotland (55,000 of them in the H&I area (6%)); and a 16,000 loss of cows (3.2%). Factoring out the relatively prosperous Moray area shows a very bleak picture in the H&I area – for example, losses in the Skye and Lochaber area were around 8% per annum. This raised a doubt about the “critical mass” of the industry before key support services were called into question. For example there are already only a few haulage firms operating in the area, and they will become reluctant to drive large distances to pick up small numbers of animals.

28. In relation to HNV farmland, there is an interesting correlation between the intensity of agriculture and biodiversity. Biodiversity increases initially as intensity increases, before falling steadily – so the most intensive agriculture is poor for wildlife, but abandoning less-intensive types of farming will also reduced in a reduction in biodiversity.

29. There was an opportunity to make better use of “article 69” funding – an EU provision that allows 10% top-slicing of subsidies for a sector or sectors to be targeted at environmental protection and quality food production etc.. This was not currently well-exploited, but had potential in addition to the better-known modulation mechanism. More generally, there was a real opportunity to develop niche products based on geographical location of production, with the emphasis on high-quality and associations with the trusted “authentic” image that Scottish food has.

Allan Burns (Chairman, Scotland Food & Drink): Scotland – land of food and drink

30. Media comments suggested that farming was in decline, but Allan Burns was optimistic for the prospects for Scottish farming. He remembered when the Scotch whisky industry was also said to be failing, but it was now a vibrant world brand. They key thing was to change and adapt to changing conditions and to adopt a “predatory” business attitude based on quality, innovation, reputation and “premiumisation”.

31. Farmers needed to understand the psychology of consumers who had become accustomed to cheap food sourced from all over the world. Expenditure on food had grown much more slowly than income levels. Consumers would, however, buy quality products at higher prices if they understood its benefits in terms of health, taste and contribution to wider public goods (such as environmental protection and animal welfare).

32. Scotland Food and Drink had been launched in June 2007 and was made up mostly of business people, with a few public sector members on the board. It was supported by a small executive team of skilled staff, and had a number of working groups tackling particular issues.

5


Climate change

33. The afternoon began with a presentation by Henry Graham, Chairman of the Climate Change and Agriculture stakeholder group (which brings together the Scottish Government, NFUS and a range of other bodies including SRPBA, SE Link, SAC etc.). It was established early in 2007 and has had a series of meetings aimed at identifying priority areas, liaising with other experts and formulating preliminary conclusions.

34. Its priority areas were:

• carbon balance

• water quality and availability

• new pests and diseases

• greenhouse gas emissions

• energy efficiency

• adaptation and modification of systems.

35. The headline points identified so far were:

• the risk of new diseases (e.g. Bluetongue and liver fluke)

• greater likelihood of flash summer flooding

• pressure on plant and bird species

• the need to increase renewable energy to 31% by 2011 and 50% by 2020.

36. There followed a presentation by Andrew Moxey of Pareto Consulting, outlining the preliminary findings of the stakeholder group.

37. Most of the rest of the afternoon was given over to workshop discussion. Each group was asked to consider a range of questions about how farming could adapt to the climate change that was already happening, how it could contribute to reducing emissions, and what were the business opportunities that climate change presented. Not all the groups reported back, but among the points made by those that did were:

• scope for energy efficiency on farms

• the case for a coordinated water policy for Scotland

• revisiting the case for GM.

38. The day ended with concluding remarks by Richard Wakeford, DG Environment. He pointed out that the SG’s target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (measured in terms of CO2e – carbon dioxide equivalent) by 80% by 2050 would require average 3.5% per annum reductions. At the same time, the SG’s growth target (to match first the UK average and then the average of comparable small EU states) would require annual economic growth of around 3%. In other words, within a decade, Scotland would need to do 30% more with 30% less energy. Agriculture had a major part to play in generating £25m extra business per

6


annum, while saving around 4Mt of CO2e over 10 years. Considerable investment would be needed, but Scottish food and drink sales were projected to grow from £7.5bn to £10bn per annum by 2010.

7



RECENT DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE COMMITTEE’S REMIT

Note by the Clerk: Each time an agenda and papers for a meeting are circulated to members, a short paper like this one will also be included as a means of alerting members to relevant documents of general interest which they can follow up through the links included.

Scottish Government appointments

The Scottish Government has announced two new appointments to the Board of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Julia Sturrock and Bob Downes. The Scottish Government’s news release is available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/01/25105944

Scottish Government announcements

The Scottish Fisheries Council met for the first time on 22 January 2008. The Council is a new body which is made up of representatives from the fishing, scientific and environmental sectors under the chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment. Full details are available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/01/22115929 The Sustainable Seas Task Force met for the first time on 23 January 2008. The task force is chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment and is tasked with developing proposals for “new, streamlined legislation to protect Scotland's marine and coastal environment”. Details are available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/01/23112255

Annual reports

The following annual reports for 2006-07 have been laid before the Parliament. As agreed by the Committee at its meeting on 5 September, this will not automatically appear on a Committee agenda for scrutiny, but any member who wishes to see it considered as an agenda item should contact the clerks in the first instance. The Deer Commission for Scotland’s annual report for 2006-07 was laid before the Parliament on 29 November 2007 and is available via: http://www.dcs.gov.uk/info_documents.aspx The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority annual report for 2006-07 was laid before the Parliament on 21 November 2007.

Correspondence with the Scottish Government

From January 2008, correspondence between the Committee and the Scottish Government is available via the Committee’s correspondence webpage at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/rae/Correspondence.htm.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/01/25105944



http://www.dcs.gov.uk/info_documents.aspx

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/rae/Correspondence.htm


Such correspondence will no longer be circulated with agendas as “papers for information”. However, correspondence that relates to agenda items will continue to be provided in the papers for the relevant meeting.

Brussels Bulletin

The fortnightly Brussels Bulletin produced by the Parliament’s European Officer is available online at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/europe/BrusselsBulletin.htm

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/europe/BrusselsBulletin.htm

RAE/S3/08/2/M


MINUTES

2nd Meeting, 2008 (Session 3)

Wednesday 23 January 2008

Present: Roseanna Cunningham (Convener) Jamie Hepburn Peter Peacock John Scott (Deputy Convener)

Karen Gillon Des McNulty Mike Rumbles Bill Wilson

The meeting opened at 10.03 am. 1. Subordinate legislation: The Committee took evidence on the draft

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2007 and the draft Quality Meat Scotland Order 2008 from—

Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, and Aileen Bearhop, Principal Policy Officer, Agricultural Commodities, Agriculture Division, Scottish Government.

2. Subordinate legislation: Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, moved—

S3M-1166—That the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommends that the draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2007 be approved; and

S3M-1167—That the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommends that the draft Quality Meat Scotland Order 2008 be approved.

After debate, the motions were agreed to.

The Committee agreed to consider a draft report on the draft instruments in rivate at a future meeting. p

3. Subordinate legislation: The Committee considered the following negative

instruments—

the Sheep and Goats (Identification and Traceability) (Scotland) mendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/559); and A

the Zoonoses and Animal By-Products (Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 007 (SSI 2007/577). 2

It agreed to write to the Scottish Government about SSI 2007/559, inviting its response to the concerns expressed by the National Farmers Union Scotland about the regulatory impact assessment and forthcoming electronic tagging legislation. It also agreed to consider a draft report on the instrument in private at its next meeting. The Committee agreed to make no recommendation in elation to SSI 2007/577. r

4. European Union scrutiny: The Committee noted a paper updating it on EU

issues relevant to its remit. It was agreed to seek further information on the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 21-22 January.

5. Flooding and flood management inquiry: The Committee took evidence from—

Professor David Crichton, Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre

and then from—

Ronnie Mercer, Chairman, Jim Conlin, Environmental Regulation Manager, and Mark Dickson, General Manager – Customer Services, Scottish Water.

6. Flooding and flood management inquiry (in private): The Committee considered the evidence heard earlier in the meeting, and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment on a number of issues raised by witnesses.

The meeting closed at 12.54 pm.

Andrew Mylne

Clerk to the Committee

Documents

RAE/S3/08/3/A RURAL AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT … · RURAL AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA 3rd Meeting, 2008 (Session 3) Wednesday 6 February 2008 The Committee will meet at