While debate still continues about the effectiveness of measures put in place to mitigate the current floods, national agencies appear to have overlooked an innovative Scandinavian solution which has prevented three French towns from serious flooding this year alone.

With more than 12 years’ experience of dealing with floods and natural disasters, Environment Solutions Denmark’s high speed portable flood mitigation technology has been successfully deployed by the French national emergency management agency (Sécurité Civile) since 2005. In December the firm signed a new 4 year agreement in France with the Securite Civile. Three French cities have been effectively protected from flooding during the extreme weather France has also experienced since the start of 2014. In May last year the city of Troyes used the technology to protect the city against flooding from river La Seine, which had reached record high water levels.

The technology has already seen wide uptake across Europe and beyond. In the UK, Environment Solutions Denmark was among a number of suppliers who gained a place on Network Rail’s portable flood defence framework contract in 2013 following extensive trials and an OJEU tendering process. The innovative technology is intended to protect critical infrastructure assets for use at short notice anywhere in the country.

The technology, which can deploy up to 5 kilometres of continuous mobile barrier, can rapidly be put in place without the need for a significant manpower requirement. Four men can between them deploy at least 1 kilometre of the system from a simple trailer and provide protection from significant volumes- and levels -  of water within 4 hours. The procedure appears to be fast, straightforward and highly effective:

Step 1: Go to the desired deployment site.

 Step 2: Place terminals and deploy tubes around the selected perimeter.

Step 3: Connect the tubes to the terminals and tighten the straps.

Step 4: Stabilize the tubes with air. Inflate the tubes with air.

Step 5: connect pumps; fill tubes with water, while releasing the air.

The incoming floodwater replaces the air inside the tubes to create the barrier, further decreasing the volume of the rising floodwater.

Pitt Review – “sandbags seen as a sticking plaster”

The use, availability and benefits of sandbags have been seen as high profile, high priority and hotly-debated topics during the course of the emergency. However, the Pitt Review on flooding which followed the summer 2007 floods made the following comments on their use:

‘Strategic sandbagging’ can be successfully used alongside roads or adjacent to important buildings to prevent them from flooding, but the work needs to be done properly by experts. The Review was unable to obtain any significant evidence that sandbags were particularly effective during the 2007 summer floods in providing protection to individual households.”

…. “The most widely used form of temporary defence used during the summer floods was sandbags…..the evidence we have had points to sandbags being relatively ineffective in helping householders mitigate the effects of flooding. In evidence, their use has been described as a ‘sticking plaster’ and the Local Government Association has said “sandbags are seen by the public and themedia as a panacea in flooding events and their existence and deployment constitutes one of the most fraught parts of the emergency response to flooding.”

“Research by the Environment Agency has suggested that at best sandbags offer a 40 per cent chance of success in keeping water out. In many cases, when sandbags are laid by householders, rather than skilled workforce, this rate will be much lower.”

… “The Review agrees that householders should expect to protect their own properties. However, we do not think it is consistent with this responsibility to recommend the phasing out of sandbags because these are a relatively cheap and available, if unsatisfactory, option.”

 “…The Government should develop a single set of guidance for local authorities and the public on the use and usefulness of sandbags and other alternatives, rather than leaving the matter wholly to local discretion. “

A quick analysis of the speed of installation alone for mobile flood defences compared with those of sandbags makes a compelling case:

The key question is, why haven’t the Environment Agency or the other flood defence authorities been deploying it?

Despite being made aware of the technology the Agency’s position is that it has no plans for its use at the present time.

Andrew Messenger, who represents Environment Solutions Denmark in the UK, has expressed a mounting sense of frustration in his efforts to demonstrate to the authorities the key role the technology could play in protecting assets.

Although the company was placed on standby by Gold Command earlier this month after providing detailed  information on product availability, technical specifications, manpower & logistics, requirements, pump requirements and the costs of outright purchase or rental, no action has yet been taken to bring the technology into use.

The Environment Agency was made aware of the technology in January 2013 at a senior level – when presentations were made to the Agency’s Innovation Manager Andrew Powell.  At the time it was agreed that the technology was leading edge – however, although not compulsory a British Kitemark would be a prerequisite and even then there would be no guarantee of takeup.  

Following a further approach in last month, Dr.Paul Leinster, Chief Executive of the Agency wrote to Andrew Messenger saying:

 “ I know that David Jordan, our Director of Operations emailed you on 20 October 2013 following an approach that you made to him…. I appreciate you providing us with information on your products. Andrew Powell remains the appropriate person with whom to discuss these products. Andrew has previously informed you of our position on the use and adoption of the portable flood defences which you are offering. This position has not changed. We have no further comments to make at this stage but we will of course consider all of the available options, should our position change.”

Pitt Review “ temporary defences provide quick and easy way to defend long lengths against flood”

 The 2008 Pitt Review, which followed the severe floods of 2007 and examined the Environment Agency position on the use of temporary and demountable flood defences, concluded:

 “Temporary defences provide a quick and relatively easy way of defending long lengths against floodwater inundation from rivers. They can be transported to suitable sites, are re-usable, and offer many advantages over traditional sandbags, including speed and success rate…..There is an increasing variety of these non-permanent defences and the flexibility they offer can have the potential to offer flood protection to locations that are not, or cannot be, protected by permanent flood defences……The Review’s interim report made the urgent recommendation that the Environment Agency should develop and implement a clear policy on the use of temporary and demountable defences.”

The Pitt Review commented on the national policy on temporary defences subsequently published by the Agency as follows:

“Environment Agency policy states that it will stop using temporary defences as an alternative to permanent schemes. It will not use them to protect new locations on a routine basis. The Environment Agency believes experience has shown that temporary defences are labour intensive, have a significant increased risk of failure, raise public expectations and are uneconomic when considering whole life costs. Temporary defences will only be considered as a short-term measure where permanent defences are being repaired or installed, but should not be used where permanent schemes cannot be justified.”

The issue will undoubtedly need to be addressed as part of the “lessons learnt” review of the current  flooding crisis. There is general agreement that the UK will now need to look hard at how it can make infrastructure and homes more resilient to the growing impacts of climate change. An element of this appears to be the relative unpredictability of the location and intensity of extreme weather events, meaning that serious flooding can now happen in previously unexpected places.

The Environment Agency, Local Authorities, the military and emergency services and all other responsible bodies charged with providing an official response to flooding incidents which are likely to grow in intensity and frequency now need more flexible, fast and effective responses as part of their flood defence armoury. The No-Floods system, together with other solutions on the market, appears to provide exactly the kind of robust and cost-effective solution which can be rapidly deployed which the UK should have in place to use in relatively short timescales.

"UK needs to look around the world to identify new approaches to emergency flood protection”

The point appears to have already been acknowledged amongst members of the Fire Service via Twitter. Andy Newland, Executive Officer to the Chief Fire Officer at Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, made the key point that “we do need to look around the world and identify new approaches and products to support emergency flood protection." Jon Hall, Fire Service Chief for Gloucester asked: “ What do flood fighters make of Andrew’s suggestion? He seems to have a product that might be of benefit. One for EA evaluation? “

Ade Caulwell, Watch Commander at Perry Barr Fire Station said that the system looks very effective, Commenting on the technology, Mark Yates Chief Fire Officer and Chief Executive Hereford & Worcester Fire and Rescue Service said "Potential future consideration . Not sure which agency would lead but the many debriefs will consider I’m sure."

The Fire Service discussion on Twitter raises a number of interesting points – not least how much flood defence providers at an operational level get to have serious input into what works best in emergencies and where at least some of the budget should be spent, irrespective of which organisation controls the purse strings.

Flooded Britain – who is in charge?

This last point raises an even more pertinent question – flagged up in an interesting article in The Independent newspaper yesterday headlined:

Flooded Britain: The police, the military and the Government – exactly who is in charge of what?

The Independent asked:

“As Britain steps up its flood defence efforts, with the police and the military mobilising their resources to help the Government take control of the disaster, it may be difficult to tell who is in charge of what in such a complex and sprawling operation - and who should be blamed for any failings.”

It is a question which the UK needs to address as a matter of urgency if the country is to ensure that the measures to deal with the impacts of further flooding are better resourced and managed in the future.