Source: Angling Trust
Environmentally damaging dredging schemes must not be prioritised over other proven flood-prevention measures – that’s the strong warning to Government from the Blueprint for Water Coalition in advance of this year’s Autumn Statement from Chancellor George Osborne.
In June 2014 the Environment Agency informed stakeholders of a new instruction from the Environment Secretary appearing to prioritise dredging over other flood risk management options. Angling and wildlife groups believe that this represents a clear shift in policy, cutting across Defra’s own funding rules which ensure the Environment Agency targets its limited budget where the benefit to communities is greatest. The organisations believe that this could trigger a return to the policies of the 1960s and 1970s and turn many rivers into straightened flood channels in order for Government to be seen to be ‘doing something’.
A new report, ‘Dredging up Trouble’, which was published this week by the Blueprint for Water partners, stresses that alternatives must be properly considered to avoid a repeat of the widespread damage that was done to fisheries and fish habitat from dredging policies of the past.
The report identifies ten priority areas which would inevitably lose out if new funding is ring-fenced for dredging alone. These include protecting life and public health, natural flood management options and sustainable drainage systems.
Mark Lloyd, Chief Executive of the Angling Trust said:
“The Government has been trying to find ways to stop farmers’ fields flooding, but ignoring the fact that bad management of these fields is causing flooding of people’s homes. Instead of wasting money on dredging, which is largely pointless, the Government should use the existing £2 billion subsidies from taxpayers to drive real change in farming practices to improve water management throughout river catchments.”
The report concludes that failure to consider all options will be in breach of Defra’s own rules which ensure that the Environment Agency targets its limited budget to areas where the benefit to communities is greatest. Recent studies have shown that dredging can, in some cases, actually make downstream flooding worse by moving water too quickly down river catchments.
Martin Salter, National Campaigns Coordinator for the Angling Trust and one of the organisers of the report, added:
“With so many communities still at flood risk and so many important schemes awaiting funding it is deeply concerning that Defra and the Treasury are considering making a special case for farmland and land-drainage over people and property with all the associated downstream risks and damage to river and wildlife habitats that dredging in inappropriate locations can cause.
Add to this the fact that three quarters of our rivers are failing to meet good ecological status, it beggars belief that wholesale dredging could be back in vogue when the evidence shows that it is always bad news for fisheries and seldom a sensible or sustainable long term solution to flooding.”
Janina Gray, Chair of the Blueprint for Water and Head of Science for the Salmon & Trout Association said:
“Within the Blueprint for Water Coalition we are concerned that, in its eagerness to be seen to be ‘doing something’, the Government will increase investment in dredging. This could exacerbate, rather than reduce, flood risk in areas and cause environmental damage. It would also reduce the likelihood of other more effective solutions being taken forward”.
In February the Blueprint for Water partners backed publication of ‘Floods and Dredging – A Reality Check’, which illustrated the folly of relying on dredging alone to reduce flood risk.
Rob Cunningham, head of water policy at the RSPB, said:
“It’s vital Government takes an evidence-led approach to reducing flood impacts through a range of measures working with natural processes to complement traditional defences by: slowing flows; and increasing infiltration and flood storage throughout catchments. That doesn’t just mean more money – it also means securing better value from the £2billion spent supporting farmers by requiring tougher action to protect soils and targeting additional payments where they deliver greatest benefit.”
The coalition has submitted its report as a formal response to the Treasury consultation on the Autumn Statement, which closed on Friday 17 October, 2014.
