Environmental Management: Floods Management Systems Report

Introduction

Analyzing recent world news articles, reports on natural disasters are occurring more and more frequently. Flooding is one of the most typical and widespread natural disasters, which consequences can greatly impact the community. An example of the severe consequences of flooding can be seen through the case of Sheffield, a city in South Yorkshire, England which in 2007 experienced two spells of exceptionally heavy rainfall. The latter led to unprecedented events in the city, causing heavy financial and environmental damages. Considering the significance of environmental protection in the case of floods, the present report provides a detailed overview of such natural disasters in terms of contributory causes, impact, risks, and the role of environmental management systems (EMS) in preparing and mitigating the impact of floods.

Flood Factors

Comparing natural disasters, it is acknowledged that floods are the “costliest in damage and financial loss”, which is mainly explained by the high utility of floodplains for transport and agriculture as well as their middle range of frequency (Burton, Kates and White 91). Generally, floods can be defined as climatologic phenomena, influenced by “geology, geomorphology, relief, and soil and vegetation conditions” (Parker 188). An exception of the latter can be seen through the floods caused by the human factor, e.g. dam failure or landslides. Factors contributing to floods can be differentiated based on the sources of floods. UK environmental agency identified the following sources of floods, based on analysis of historical records:

• High groundwater levels generate local spring flows.
• High groundwater levels produce high base flow in river channels.
• Surface water exceeds the capacity of river systems.
• Localized surface water runoff or overland flow.
• Sewer flooding (Environment Agency “South East Hampshire Catchment Flood Management Plan”, p. 40).

Based on the location of the source, flooding can be categorized into fluvial (river) flooding, surface water flooding, groundwater flooding, and highway flooding of drainage systems (Environment Agency “South East Hampshire Catchment Flood Management Plan” p. 40). In all of the aforementioned causes, heavy rains can be seen as a cause as well as an influential factor, specifically in terms of flooding in the tertiary part of the catchment.

Analyzing the floods occurring in Sheffield in 2007, heavy rainfalls were the main contributing factor, affecting several areas across the UK. Another contributing factor can be seen through wet soil conditions, which can be considered as a pre-requisite for “extensive and protracted fluvial flooding” (Marsh)Human factors, although in historical context, can be seen in the way the environment was changed, where urban sprawl turned “soft, porous surfaces to tarmac and concrete” (Rotherham 128). Drainage systems, rivers being locked into artificial banks, and heavy rains, can be seen as a combination of factors that led to floods, where “’ natural’ landscape can’t cope, and the built structures are at their limits or beyond” (Rotherham, p. 128).

Impact and Risks

The rainfalls in 2007 mostly impacted the areas of Hull and Sheffield, with floods causing the heaviest impact. The main impact in urban areas can be summarized through unprecedented flooding of properties and infrastructures, the evacuation of thousands of people, with many more being in fear of evacuation, disruptions in water supplies and electric power plants, and major economic losses. All of the latter led to the categorization of the events of 2007 in the UK as a national catastrophe (Morris et al. 11). The impact in rural areas was of similar in type and intensity, where agricultural businesses incurred considerable damage, namely associated with the loss of arable crops, damage to pastures, and the need to purchase replacement animal feed (Morris et al. 61). Translating the impact of 2007 floods into figures, those figures on the national level reach devastating numbers. In terms of infrastructure, the floods caused about £660 million in damages, with the water supplies and treatment plants being the most affected (Environment Agency “The Cost of the Summer 2007 Floods”). 13 people died, and the overall costs to the UK totaled a massive £3.2 billion, between homeowners and businesses (Environment Agency “The Cost of the Summer 2007 Floods”).

The risks associated with floods are directly correlated with the level of preparation the community hold on many different levels. In that regard, flood is a natural disaster, and thus, it cannot be prevented, where it is only possible to minimize the harms caused by floods.

Agencies

There are several agencies involved in responding to floods. The protection of people and the built environment from flooding in the UK is the responsibility of the Environment Agency in England, the Rivers Agency, The Department of Agriculture and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) (Hanlon, GMIOSH and AIEMA MIFireE 9). The aforementioned agencies have had similar duties since their formation in 1996, with a few differences between the areas in the UK in terms of operations. It should be noted that agencies are not able to cover all the aspects of the environmental protection duties, and thus there are other parties involved in flood risk management. A few of those organizations and their responsibilities can be seen in the following list:

• Local authorities – the main role of local authorities revolve around the management of the risks associated with surface water flooding, emergency planning for flooding, and handling recovery operations (Environment Agency “Flooding in England: A National Assessment of Flood Risk” 12). Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) can be seen as one of the representatives of local authorities, the role of which include saving a life, protecting property, and protecting the environment (Environment Agency “Flooding in England: A National Assessment of Flood Risk” 39)
• Internal drainage boards (IDBs) – independent bodies, which responsibilities lie within managing water levels land drainage areas.
• Regional flood defense committees (RFDCs) – their roles lie in making decisions related to the programs, improvements, and maintenance work by the Environment Agency.
• Local resilience forums (LRFs) – local forums that bring together the emergency services through planning for prevention, control, and reduction of flood impact.

Evaluation

Management Systems

The main aspect that characterizes the floods of 2007 in the UK is unprecedented. In that regard, the comparison to a previous natural disaster of the same scale indicates the absence of preparation for such floods on various levels. Accordingly, one of the main areas of criticism of the way the government responded to the flood was the lack of coordination between various agencies. The latter can be seen as deficiencies in the way the environmental management system (EMS) was implemented or the absence of such implementation thereof. Such factors as the lack of timely warnings predicting heavy rainfall, where ministers were warned months before the floods, while little was done in terms of such warnings to protect towns and villages that were vulnerable (Revill).

The role of EMS can be seen in providing a structured and documented approach to the environmental performance and responsibilities of an organization (Hanlon, GMIOSH, and AIEMA MIFireE 164). Assessing the role and the effectiveness of the EMS in the 2007 UK floods, the essential elements of the EMS should be outlined. These elements include, but are not limited to such aspects as:

• Planning – including:

1. Establishing environmental legal requirements.
2. Objectives and targets.
3. Environment management programs.

• Implementation and Operation -including:

1. Training awareness and competence.
2. Communication.
3. EMS documentation.
4. Emergency preparedness and response.

• Checking and corrective action
• Management review

One of the lacking aspects in the implementation of EMS during the flood can be seen in the communication and the coordination part, with four separate departments having some responsibility, and at the same time no one minister with overall control of flood policy (Revill). In that regard, the fact the EMS is a voluntary framework, rather than a legal one can be seen in the absence of commitment to the environment protection goals by all the stakeholders. The legal framework, on the other hand, is represented through the environmental impact assessment EIA, which goal is to anticipate and mitigate the environmental impacts of proposed new projects at the design and planning stages (Palframan 1). Accordingly, it can be stated that the barriers that were identified as hindering the integration between EIA and EMS can be seen as related to the same areas of criticism to the responses of the government to the flood. These areas include the reluctance to put resources into operational management before the outcome is known (Palframan 2), the lack of communication between those two interfaces, and the differences between the way both interfaces are implemented, e.g. day-to-day activities and environmental implications in EMS and the differentiation between the planning stage and implementation in EIA.

Another aspect that should be mentioned in connection with the role of EMS in the flood is in the identification and the assessment of the environmental hazards existing for an organization. The latter implies identifying environmental concerns, external risks existent in vulnerable areas, modeling the probability of flood, and timely report of the findings. In terms of the environmental concerns, such recognized, and in some cases debatable, phenomena such as global warming, ozone, depletion, and the greenhouse effect, might have had an impact, in case they were timely managed and assessed. The latter include the influence of such phenomena on the factors contributing to floods, e.g. the condition of the soil, and accordingly, the increasing the awareness of the population and the level of preparedness of communities.

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

One of the lessons that were learned after the flood was in assessing the intervals between identifying flood risks and planning flood defenses in vulnerable areas (Revill). Increasing the commitment to environmental protection should be based on the involvement of all the parties and the agencies, specifically the Environment Agency, which cuts in budgets, cuts in jobs, and the prevention of building drainage and sewer systems for economic reasons. It was learned that environment protection is the result of collective efforts of different agencies, which authority should be approximately equal. The perception of EMS as a voluntary standard that can be ignored, lack the possibilities to be enforced is generally related to the aspects of authority.

One of the recommendations in such a matter can be seen in the suggestions that were made on integrating the competencies and the responsibilities of EMS and EIA. Giving both frameworks similar regulatory statuses would have made those frameworks complementary to each other, in terms of roles and responsibilities. The documentation of the lessons learned, taking corrective actions and review, would provide a new framework of integration, in which new protocols of communication and coordination would be established. Other recommendations might include providing an enhanced and unified communication channel between the agencies involved and the public, in which the communication channels will be involved not only in preparing communities but also in providing timely communications during the response plan. The absence of the latter was one of the areas of criticism for the responsible management of the 2007 UK flood that should be considered among the lessons learned. In terms of the environmental concerns, a model should be developed that will track the changes in ht environment along with land use and development to provide a comprehensive assessment of future flood risks. The correlation between the assessment and the natural disasters that do occur should be integrated into such parts of the EMS as corrective actions and management review, the findings of which should contribute to the framework’s continual improvements.

Conclusion

The present report provided an overview of a flood, as one of the most costly natural disasters for communities. The report was founded on the case study of Sheffield as a part of the UK floods in 2007. The case study provided directions for improvements, based on the way the disaster was managed by different agencies. It can be concluded that EMS should have a greater role in predicting and mitigating the consequences of such natural disasters, an aspect that was absent in the case of UK floods.

Works Cited

1. Burton, Ian, Robert W. Kates, and Gilbert F. White. The Environment as Hazard. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press, 1993. Print.
2. Environment Agency. “The Cost of the Summer 2007 Floods”. 2010. Environment Agency.
3. —. “Flooding in England: A National Assessment of Flood Risk”. 2009. Environment Agency.
4. —. “South East Hampshire Catchment Flood Management Plan”. 2007. Environment Agency.
5. Hanlon, David, GMIOSH, and AIEMA MIFireE. Fire Service Operations. Fire Service Manual. Vol. 2. Norwich: TSO (The Stationery Office), 2008. Print.
6. Marsh, Terry. “The 2007 Floods in Context”. 2008. British Hydrological Society.
7. Morris, Joe, et al. “Impacts of Summer 2007 Floods on Rural Communities in England”. 2008. Commission for Rural Communities.
8. Palframan, L. “The Integration of Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management Systems: Experiences from the UK ” The Role of Impact Assessment in Transitioning to the Green Economy (2010).
9. Parker, Dennis J. Floods. Routledge Hazards and Disasters Series. Vol. 1: Taylor & Francis, 2000. Print.
10. Revill, Jo. “Met Office Warned Ministers Months Ago About Flooding”. 2007. The Guardian.
11. Rotherham, Ian D. “Floods and Water: A Landscape-Scale Response.” Journal of Practical Ecology and Conservation 7.1 (2008): 128-37. Print.