Interpreting
coastal futures
Nowhere is climate change more visible than along our coastline. Communities are
experiencing more frequent flooding, greater intensity storms, not to mention potential loss
of livelihoods and property than ever before. Just what then, might the future have in store
for these communities? Tim O’Riordan and Jessica Milligan from the University of East Anglia
consider the question.
T
he coasts of Britain have
finally begun to be seen by
the public and politicians for
what they really are. They
are, for the most part, unstable,
dynamic, exposed to flooding and
erosion, yet heavily populated for
residence, commerce, leisure and
nature conservation value.
In 2004 the Office of Science and
Technology published a report on
possible scenarios for coastal and river
valley flooding over the rest of this
century. In one way, this was a highly
speculative move. Nobody seriously
believes we can forecast over 95 years
with any certainty. But in another
important way, the exercise highlights
how we treat our coasts, and how we
should, as a democracy, prepare our
future generations for plausible, safe
and vibrant coastal livelihoods, while
we have the time to make the required
adjustments.
6 The edge Winter 2006
The Foresight Future Flooding reports
(Evans et al, 2004) examined four
scenarios (story-based predictions set
in plausible assumptions) of coastal
and river valley change over the next
95 years. These provided a basis for
examining how: society might be
organised; what values it may hold;
what greenhouse gas emissions and
consequent sea level rise would be,
with attendant salt incursion of coastal
freshwater sources.
The four scenarios were based on
the following criteria:
1 A rapidly expanding global market
driven economy with an emphasis
on innovation, competitiveness
and technological advance. This
would create a strong sense of
interdependence, but also a
willingness to experiment with
market-based approaches to regulation
and social behaviour. The scenario
involves a sense of social autonomy
and high greenhouse gas emissions.
2 A more national-based approach to
shaping economy and society, with an
emphasis on national dialogue and
embedded well-being. There would be
a greater sense of national
responsibility for future outcomes,
both adverse and beneficial, and
middling levels of greenhouse gas
emissions.
3 A locally based economy, with
much more emphasis on social
responsibility. There would be
relatively low emissions and local
solutions to planning and
environmental management would be
encouraged.
4 A global sustainability scenario
with a high emphasis on international
action and international obligation
over all aspects of sustainable
The coasts of Britain have finally begun to be seen by the public and politicians
for what they really are. They are, for the most part, unstable, dynamic,
exposed to flooding and erosion, yet heavily populated for residence, commerce,
leisure and nature conservation value.
development. This would result in low
emissions with a strong commitment
to regulation and more proactive
management of resources and
landscapes to be sure that they remain
viable.
The Foresight study concluded that, at
present, two million properties worth
over £440 billion, are at risk of flooding
from rivers and seas. There are 80,000
urban properties at risk of localised
downpours which overwhelm drains
and cause water to stand around. This
outcome, coupled with the likelihood
of much more intensive thunderstorms
could put properties worth a further
£200 billion at risk of flooding, even
those nowhere near a river or the coast.
Potentially this ‘overwhelmed
drainage’ effect could move huge
amounts of insurance money and
public investment away from proactive
management of rivers and coasts.
Under the four scenarios, the Foresight
team estimated that future annual
flood-related costs could rise from the
current £1.4 billion to £2.5 billion
under the ‘local sustainability’
scenario, and over £30 billion under
the ‘market-based’ scenario. Expressed
in terms of costs in relation to national
income, the two scenarios based on
more communal approaches (global
and local sustainability) could involve
lower overall burden than at present.
The implications of this exercise
are threefold:
1 The effects of overwhelmed drainage
in urban areas, notably where
properties are insured and unprotected,
could involve a huge political bias in
favour of investing in urban drainage
improvements. Yet managing water
before (by better design of buildings)
and after it hits the ground (by
improving the water retention
capacities of river catchments) should
be the priority for drought-prone and
water-short areas.
2 There is no way that all future coasts
can be defended to the present levels
of ‘holding the line’ without massive
additional costs and even greater
ultimate vulnerability to the
‘unsettled’ future coastline. Holding a
mobile coastline in place means that
nearby coasts may be starved of
protective sediment, and hence further
exposed to coastal hazard. So holding
the line is not only costly, but will
result in inter-community squabbles as
community after community tries to
defend itself. This is a recipe for chaos
and intransigence over any future
coastal planning. It is another reason
why it is necessary to ensure that local
authorities are encouraged to
cooperate along naturally-functioning
coastlines.
3 Designing a coast for retreat and
reconstruction to more natural
mechanisms of defence (offshore
sandbars, tidal lagoons, salt marshes,
sand dunes, wetlands, and flood soak
areas) will require visions of possible
future alignments, creative planning to
avoid future risk, and a high degree of
public involvement based on a strong
commitment to trust and social justice.
This means that the future of coastal
management cannot remain just
within flood management policy, but
must embrace new forms of settlement
planning, economic development and
social relationships. This is a
comprehensive sustainability agenda,
and one that lies well beyond the
current remit of Defra, bringing in
local government, planning, training
and enterprise elements of the public
and private sectors.
The current circumstances of coastal
planning are neither geomorph-
ologically sensitive nor socially
tolerable. The present official aim,
namely, to establish a new generation
of shoreline management plans, to
invite public consultation, and to
refuse any compensation for loss of
property value, simply will fail.
Already local authorities are rejecting
the new breed of SMPs, Coastal MPs
are limbering up for a ‘hold the line’
stand-off and citizen willingness to get
involved in creative dialogue is
evaporating in exasperation, anxiety
and despair.
There is no solution for all this, under
current arrangements. Indeed, matters
will only get worse if the government
tries to carry on in the manner in
which it is currently operating.
The way forward is:
● To hold all coasts for a further five
years to give everyone time to come
to terms with future realities
● To share the current responsibilities
of Defra by placing the enlarged
opportunities in the hands of a
wide-ranging approach to
sustainable coastal livelihoods.
Land use planning should be
designed to move property
progressively away from vulnerable
areas and to stop any new build in
all possible future zones of flood
threat
● To use the sustainability principles
to establish coastal action plans
that shape livelihoods and social
relations for long-term coastal
recession and reconstruction. Plans
that help ensure new coastal
landscapes and settlements are
healthy, economically active on a
highly localised basis, and socially
united by just treatment and fair
play.
Tim O’Riordan and Jessica Milligan, Tyndall Centre
and CSERGE, University of East Anglia
Emails: t.oriordan@uea.ac.uk and
j.milligan@uea.ac.uk
Tyndall Centre: www.tyndall.ac.uk
Centre for Social and Economic Research
on the Global Environment (CSERGE):
www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge
The edge Winter 2006 7