Written evidence from Rewilding Britain (FFP 80)

1.               Executive Summary

1.1        Rewilding is an approach to land management that seeks to work with natural processes to restore ecosystems and reconnect society with the natural world. We believe rewilding has a crucial role to play in our efforts to reduce flood risk and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Rewilding projects are long lasting, involve communities in decision-making and improve the area for wildlife as well as people.

1.2        There are a range of rewilding practices that can help prevent freshwater flooding. There is increasing evidence and support for such approaches, but it is clear that it will need political leadership from the highest level to make it happen, including clear funding streams to facilitate action.

2.               Protecting communities and funding arrangements 

2.1        There needs to be much more emphasis on delivering flood management schemes that work with local people and the environment. Whilst there is now good evidence that these practices can work effectively, there are barriers preventing the implementation of more schemes.

2.2        We believe flood-prone communities should have a lead role in catchment management. Community planning processes should be established which enable communities to negotiate with landowners upstream and to determine how flood management budgets should best be allocated. They should be supported by professional facilitators, expert advice, public money and official empowerment.

2.3        A pioneering scheme in Belford, Northumberland is a good example of how this can work. The Environment Agency worked with the community across a catchment to manage run-off and slow the flow of the river through a range of mechanisms, including barriers to slow river flows and the creation of storage ponds. It was relatively low-cost, at £300,000 compared to a conventional scheme estimate of £4million.[i]

2.4        Another good example of a strong partnership approach is in Yorkshire where a more sustainable approach to managing flood risk has reduced the risk of flooding in Pickering from a 25% chance in any year to a less than 4% chance.[ii]

2.5        One key barrier preventing the development of more schemes that work with nature is obtaining funding. Treasury rules use cost benefit analysis which is very focussed on delivering direct benefits to property affected by floods. This can lead to projects that deal with problems where they arise without addressing the issues at a macro level. Catchment-wide packages of measures that work with nature cannot always demonstrate pure monetary benefits, even though they deliver a range of other benefits.

2.6        Natural flood management projects currently rely on levering in partnership funding which slows progress. We would like to see much more integration of policy and accelerated delivery of natural flood risk management through the establishment of clear, integrated funding streams that proactively encourage projects that aim for multiple benefits for people and nature, across catchments.

3.      Encouraging Innovative Management of water flows and storage

3.1        There are a range of rewilding practices that can help prevent freshwater flooding.

3.2        Land management practices: Tree planting and natural regeneration of trees and scrub, in particular, can significantly reduce flooding, soil erosion and water pollution.[iii] Studies of the Pontbren Project[iv] in mid-Wales, where shelter belts of trees were planted across sheep pastures, discovered that water infiltrates into the soil under the trees up to 60 times the rate at which it infiltrates into the soil under the pasture. One research paper[v] estimates that reforesting just 5% of the upland landscape reduces flood peaks by around 29%, while full reforestation would reduce them by some 50%.

3.3        A study for the National Trust[vi] concluded that at a small catchment scale (less than 100 km2) – which applies to 97% of England and Wales – land management has a quantitative impact upon run-off and can be used as part of an integrated approach to flood risk management.

3.4        We want to see more afforestation incentives, particularly in upland areas, through Countryside Stewardship, voluntary initiatives and novel funding approaches.

3.5                                                               Despite the growing evidence to support the role of ecosystem restoration in flood risk management,[vii] there is still a lack of action on the ground, and a number of key policy barriers need to be addressed. For example, the basic payment to farmers under Pillar One of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) includes a rule that they must keep the land bare by not allowing any “Permanent Ineligible Features” (PIFs). The Government’s list of proscribed PIFs includes woods, dense scrubs, wide hedges and ponds - all features that could help slow the flow of water through landscapes and mitigate floods.[viii] It’s clear that the Permanent Ineligible Features rule needs to be removed to facilitate more natural flood risk management. Government should push for reform of the CAP to incentivise ecosystem restoration

3.6                                                               Another practice that can contribute to increased flood risk downstream is the burning and draining of upland peat.  Intact peat helps to retain water upland for longer, and is a major carbon sink. Blocking ditches and drains on peat bogs has been shown to help slow flows and raise water tables.[ix]

3.7                                                               Government should produce a strategy to ensure that we protect and secure multiple benefits from carbon-rich soils and peatlands, and end unsustainable use of peat. We need to see more incentives for landowners to restore peatlands in order to help with flood prevention.

3.8        River restoration. Restoring rivers so that they can meander and re-connect with floodplains helps to protect settlements downstream. Defra funded trials of natural flood management  have confirmed that carefully designed and positioned flood storage areas resulted in a measurable decrease in peak flood flow and height downstream.  They also showed that water can be effectively held back and slowed by a series of leaky woody dams.

3.9        The recently published appraisal of evidence[x] from the trials also found that there were additional benefits of Natural Flood Management including erosion control; reduced loss of soil/peat particles; carbon sequestration; improved water quality downstream; creation of new habitat and biodiversity gains.

3.10   Measures which work with nature and people often cost a fraction of the hard flood defences traditionally proposed for flood prone areas. It makes sense for the Government to do more to pro-actively encourage a rollout of projects at scale, including providing relevant agencies’ delivery staff information about how flooding can be alleviated through working with natural processes.

3.11   Beaver reintroduction.  One low-cost solution to reducing flooding is to allow beavers to return to our rivers. The dams they build and woody debris they place in watercourses can have a powerful influence in slowing the flow. Following the re-introduction of beavers to Belgium, one study[xi] found a significant lowering of peak flow downstream of dams, and an increase in the interval between major floods. In one North American study, water took 3-4 hours to travel 2.6km where there were no beaver dams. When a single, leaky beaver dam, 1.5m high, was established, it took 11 days to travel the same distance.[xii]

3.12                                                          Natural England’s study in 2009 on the feasibility of reintroducing beavers to Britain[xiii] found that beavers regulate river flows and beneficially reduce flood peak levels downstream. Results from a University of Exeter study of a new colony of beavers in Devon are showing that as well as their dams helping to regulate water flow, their presence can cleanse water and boost fish populations.[xiv]

3.13                                                          Whilst beavers will not help in every catchment, as part of a package of measures on smaller scale catchments they could be a cost-effective part of flood prevention.

3.14                                                          With a good education programme and understanding from emerging evidence of the multiple benefits of beavers, a programme of reintroduction seems timely. We recommend that Natural England’s Board confirm a position statement that supports licensed reintroduction of beavers as part of flood and water national objectives.

March 2016