Q&A with John Badley, Senior Site Manager at Freiston Shore nature reserve
Managed realignment is the deliberate process of altering flood defences so that land that had previously been claimed from the sea is returned to it by re-flooding.
The strategy is driven by two
main factors: 1) environmental legislation aimed at preventing
the loss and degradation of coastal habitats, and the animal and plant life
that depend on those habitats, and 2) the need to reduce the flood and erosion
risk to people and property as climate change causes sea levels to rise.
Importantly, it also holds out the possibility of being a more cost-effective way of
reducing flood risk.
The strategy is relatively new but has in recent years
been undertaken at a number of sites around the UK, including Medmerry
in Sussex, and Abbotts
Hall,
Alkborough
Flats and Freiston
Shore in Lincolnshire.
The interview below with the RSPB’s John Badley is about
Freiston Shore nature reserve and the managed realignment project that enabled the
reserve to be created. When the project was embarked on it was the
largest managed realignment scheme to date.
In the 1880s, however, the sandy beach that had
attracted so many visitors slowly began to disappear, as the saltmarsh
surrounding the area started to spread. Freiston Shore’s popularity and tourist numbers
declined accordingly.
In the next period of its history, Freiston Shore became one of the areas in Lincolnshire where land was claimed from The Wash. This occurred from the 1940s and
ended around 1983, when Freiston Shore became one of the last projects to claim land from the sea. Specifically, HMP North Sea Camp prison built an outer sea bank as an extension to one that had been built in the
middle of the century with the aim of creating new agricultural land.
More cost-effective solution
Unfortunately, the new outer sea bank was built in a
place that was vulnerable to storm tides and so had to be regularly repaired,
which had obvious cost implications. In 1999, therefore, it was decided that retreat
was advisable and that the newly claimed land should be returned to the sea.
To this end, it was decided to break the newer sea bank in three
places to allow seawater to flow back in and allow new marshland to form.
While breaking sea banks might seem likely to increase
the threat of floods what has been learned is that marshland can create an effective cushion between the open sea
and land.
In other words, saltmarshes act as natural buffers against the destructive power of the sea – especially in storm surge conditions – as they dramatically reduce wave height and wave action. This helps reduce flood risk. Marshland also prevents soil erosion and sequesters large quantities of carbon.
Prior to the realignment work being approved a cost/benefit assessment was undertaken. This concluded that the proposed work would provide a more cost-effective approach to managing flood risk than constantly
having to improve existing flood defences.
There were nevertheless costs, of course, and a document
produced after the scheme was completed (Managed realignment for people and
wildlife – the Freiston Shore experience) explains how the project was funded.
First, the capital (mainly engineering) costs for the
realignment (£1.98 M) were met from the Environment Agency’s flood defence
budget plus £850,000 funding from DEFRA (75%) and Lincolnshire Flood Defence
committee (25%).
Second, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
(RSPB)
agreed to purchase 92 ha of land from HMP for £150,000. The purchase (which included
the proposed realignment area) has allowed the RSPB to create the new nature reserve at Freiston Shore,
with the costs met by using income from a donation made to the RSPB by the
McLellan Trust in memory of the late Barbara McLellan.
Unforeseen consequence
Once the initial engineering work was completed (in
2002) management of the site was handed over to the RSPB to allow them to create
the new reserve. Material that had been dug out to strengthen the old bank was
used to create a large lagoon as an attractive habitat for wading bird
populations. The creek system that had existed prior to building the new sea wall was also rebuilt, and new pools added to
aid tidal flow/siltation and the colonisation of saltmarsh species.
Unfortunately, there was an unforeseen consequence of the work: the
new realignment disturbed the surrounding area of intertidal
habitat in a way that impacted on a local oyster fisherman, who had to be paid compensation
for the negative effect on his business. This was expected to cost several
£100,000’s.
However, while this unanticipated cost might have
altered the result of the cost/benefit analysis had it been factored in, the above
cited report notes: “the realignment remains the preferred and most sustainable
flood defence option, and has significant environmental benefits which are not
given monetary values in the cost:benefit analysis.”
An important point here is that saltmarsh and
intertidal habitats not only reduce flood risk but they are some of the rarest
habitats in the UK and can support important flora and fauna. Yet they have
been disappearing rapidly in recent years. Before it was integrated with Natural England in 2006, therefore, English Nature had
set a target for the creation of 100 ha of saltmarsh per year in England.
The bottom line: while managed realignment can offer a more cost-effective solution to reducing flood risk than constantly reinforcing sea defences, it should not be viewed as a simple cost-accounting exercise.
Either way, for the Fens flooding is a serious issue. With concern growing that urban areas as distant from The Wash as Cambridge could at some point find parts of their town underwater it seems clear that, if flooding is to be avoided in the future, then new and more innovative approaches to reducing flood risk are essential.
The Q&A below with John Badley took place by email
and has been edited for length and clarity.
The interview begins …
 |
| John Badley |
A: I’m the Senior Site
Manager for the RSPB overseeing the management of Frampton
Marsh and Freiston Shore nature reserves. I’ve been in
working here since 2000.
Prior to that I worked at Langstone Harbour
in Hampshire and Dungeness
in Kent following a degree in Environmental Studies at the University of London.
Q: As I understand it, the managed
realignment scheme at Freiston Shore is intended
to address a number of issues including, 1) the threat that climate change and
rising sea levels pose for the area in terms of flooding and, 2) the loss and damage
to flora and fauna the area has seen as a result of a decline in saltmarsh and
intertidal habitats. Is that right?
A: Yes. Economics was a big
part too. The Environment Agency [EA]
carried out a cost benefit analysis which concluded protecting the area that is
now the managed realignment was not economically justifiable.
Q: Can you say more about the threats and how
it is hoped that realignment will mitigate them? Removing sea defences to
address problems of flooding might seem counterintuitive to many.
A: Research shows that sea
banks with saltmarshes fronting them are more sustainable and cheaper to
maintain, while also providing valuable wildlife habitat. At Freiston Shore, it
was a case of moving the sea defences back to where they were previously so a
natural saltmarsh can re-establish in front of them rather than removing them
entirely.
It’s important to remember The Wash used to be much
more extensive and is artificially constrained so it’s a case of redressing the
balance and working with nature and natural processes rather than trying to
fight them.
Sea levels are rising and so it appears is the
frequency of storm events, both can have significant impacts on sea banks as
well as the natural habitats in The Wash and the species that depend on them.
The threats include the flooding of homes, businesses
and agricultural land as well as the loss of valuable wildlife habitat. The
realignment mitigates for all these by making the sea defences more viable and
providing wildlife habitat, so it’s a win:win.
Interesting history
Q: Freiston Shore has an interesting
history. Wikipedia notes that
in the late 18th and 19th centuries it had a sandy shore
and was developed as a resort where people bathed and organised horse races and other attractions were provided on the beach. It also had several hotels. This
changed when the sand gave way to saltmarsh. Was that change a result of human
activity or natural processes?
A: Natural processes.
Q: Subsequently, North Sea Camp Prison enclosed
some of the marsh to use as agricultural land. As you noted, this has now been
reversed with the realignment programme. As part of this project the sea bank has
been broken to allow the sea back in and the area has been “landscaped” to make
it more amenable to birds and plans. A map I saw online indicates that in
addition to an area designated as management realignment there is a lagoon and
an area of wetland. Can you say what the aim of each section is and what it is
hoped each will achieve?
A: The
lagoon was one of two ‘borrow
pits’
which is where the material was sourced to create the new section of bank and
to provide the material required to raise the existing defences.
This has worked well, and the lagoon has been home to
large numbers of roosting waders at high tide (up to 10,000), breeding birds
(including 1,500 pairs of black-headed gulls and up to 150 pairs of common
terns) and feeding birds (2,000 wigeon and 1,500 brent geese).
In addition, landscaping of the managed realignment
area by adding creeks and pools has provided additional opportunities for
nesting redshank as well as feeding areas for avocets and other waders.
Q: What are the primary birds and plants that
are expected to prosper at Freiston Shore as a result of the project? Do you
expect to see some return that had disappeared from the area?
A: As above, plus saltmarsh
plants, many of which are nationally scarce. The lagoon has already led to the
return of some breeding species lost to the area such as black-headed gull,
common tern, oystercatcher and ringed plover.
Other species have benefitted from additional
opportunities to increase their populations, such as redshanks.
Q: I read that Freiston Shore was the
largest realignment area created to date in the UK.
How much land is involved and what is distinctive about the project aside from
its scale?
A: 66ha.
It is no longer the largest, although it was when it was created in 2002.
Costs
Q: How was the work to create the site
funded and how will the ongoing costs be met going forward?
A: The Environment Agency
paid the costs for the flood defence scheme. And EA are still responsible for
the longer-term flood defence.
RSPB helped facilitate the project by offering to buy
the land from HMP North Sea Camp prison. The cost for this was set by a
District Valuation. RSPB covers the ongoing infrastructure costs (grazing,
benches, footpaths etc.) and habitat management.
Q: Aside from government funding, what
income does the site have to support it going forward?
A: As I say, the flood
defences are maintained by the EA. The management costs for the infrastructure
for visitors and wildlife habitats are paid for by RSPB with funding support from
Natural England’s Countryside
Stewardship scheme.
We ask non-member visitors to pay a £1 facilities fee
covering parking etc. which also helps contribute towards the management costs.
Q: I believe the site has become a tourist
spot. How many visitors are there annually?
A: Around 30,000 per annum,
which is more than we expected.
Q: Is it important that members of the
public visit the site? If so, why? Are there downsides to providing public
access?
A: We want to inspire
people about nature so access for visitors is very important to us. We need to
manage the balance between visitors and wildlife carefully to reduce the risk
of people impacting on the wildlife they come to see.
This is done by providing sanctuary areas for wildlife
and carefully designing access routes etc. There are always issues with open public
access, but the vast majority of our visitors do not cause any problems for us
or wildlife.
Lessons learned
A: An unexpected cost was
the impact the realignment had on an oyster fishery. The owner was therefore compensated
for the unforeseen impact on his business, which was a result of the
hydrological modelling not predicting changes very far outside the realignment
area in The Wash.
The number of visitors was a pleasant surprise, it
just shows that if you provide somewhere nice to enjoy the coast and nature
people will come.
As far as the realignment goes the saltmarsh
established as expected and provided the benefits intended (for flood defence
and wildlife), so that worked as well as anticipated.
Q: I think the concept of managed
realignment is relatively new and perhaps not always understood or welcomed by
the public. A report produced by CoastAdapt
in Australia that looked at three coastal realignment projects in the UK made this
point: “while practitioners and researchers
show strong support for this strategy, the community is more negative. People
tend to assume that defensive structures offer more reliable protection and so
removal of such structures raises community concern and conflict. Public
opinion also depends on local context as well as who pays for managed realignment,
perceived winners and losers from the strategy, and cultural values.” I believe
there was some resistance locally at Freiston Shore but that these objections
were overruled by the local authority. How important is it to try and get the
buy in of local people when undertaking such schemes and what is the best way
of doing that in your view?
A: It is very important.
Local people were generally supportive because many could remember when the
area was a saltmarsh, which it was until it was claimed for agriculture in 1982.
So, it was just 20 years since it had been taken from the sea.
I think where this isn’t the case (i.e., where there
are much older historical land claims) it will be more of an issue. As there
are more examples of these types of schemes it will no doubt get less
contentious and easier to show how it works and provide evidence that there is
better rather than worse flood protection as a result of allowing some land to
be reflooded.
The other benefits – such as the provision of a public
amenity/recreation for walkers and bird watchers, for exercise and wellbeing etc.,
and the local economy benefits from a tourist attraction that brings people to
the area – will help local communities see realignments as beneficial to their
community.
Different needs and expectations
Q: Do you think the different needs and
expectations of different groups of people could see managed realignment and
other rewetting schemes become a source of conflict in the future?
A: Potentially, but if they
are well planned and designed they can deliver multiple benefits. For
conservationists realignments can be a mixed blessing as often the area you
want to realign over is already designated for its freshwater wetland habitats
(e.g. along the Suffolk and Norfolk coasts), so you then need to find a
replacement for that as well.
From a purely nature conservation perspective The Wash
hinterland is not problematic for managed realignment because it is almost
entirely arable, which provides limited complementary/additional value to The
Wash (and unlike saltmarsh, which is quite a rare habitat in the UK and
globally, it’s not in particularly short supply).
Hopefully with the new Environmental
Land Management Scheme being developed in which farmers and
landowners will be paid for delivering public good there will be additional
opportunities for creating complementary habitats that will provide flood
defence, carbon sequestration, tourism, recreation and wildlife benefits.
This may lead to more opportunities and greater uptake
by landowners than is currently the case.
Q: Thinking more broadly: most people who
write about the Fens today seem to deprecate the fact that the area was drained,
or imply that it should not have been drained to the extent it has been. In
reality, of course, things are rarely black and white. I wonder what in your
view are the pros and cons of the Fens having been drained? Is the current
situation sustainable without some radical change of thinking and new
approaches?
A: I understand the reasons
why it was done, but as an environmentalist I think the loss of the Fens as an
ecosystem was a huge shame because we lost one of the most impressive habitats
and landscapes in England.
As for the second question, well, we’re losing peat at
quite a rate, so there is an argument to suggest that current farming methods
are not sustainable in the long term.
Q: What are the pros and cons of land
having been reclaimed from
the sea historically?
A: The pros are that more
land became available for food production, which increased the size of land
holdings/estates. The cons are that it has increased flood risk, led to loss of
wildlife habitat and increased costs plus loss of carbon etc. The word
‘reclaimed’ is often misleading. It usually wasn’t ours in the first place, so
in most cases the land was claimed not reclaimed from the sea.
Q: If we are now having to return some of the
land to the sea does that mean we went too far historically, or is it rather
that the situation has changed?
A: Perhaps both.
Q: What do you think the implications of
climate change are for the Fens overall, both in the short and the long term?
In his book, The
Fens, Discovering England’s Ancient Depths Francis
Pryor included an epilogue entitled “Farewell Boston.” In that epilogue, he said
he had concluded that it is inevitable that the Fens will flood again. As he
put it, “it’s a process that cannot be delayed forever”. He went on to suggest
that Boston, Spalding and Wisbech, as well as Fengate and much of eastern
Peterborough, were particularly vulnerable. Do you agree? If so, what are the
implications of this threat for those who live in the Fens, especially those in
the lowest lying areas? Does it imply that we are going to have to undertake a
lot more coastal realignment in coming years?
A: I suppose it depends on
what timescales we’re talking about and what, if anything, we can do about sea
level rise. We can spend a lot of money building bigger and bigger sea banks,
but, at some point, this may become too expensive or technically unfeasible.
There may come a point when economics wins the argument,
and some areas will be allowed to revert to intertidal habitats. We also have a
moral (and legal) obligation to protect our important wildlife habitats and if
these are being lost to ‘coastal
squeeze’ then we’ll have to find somewhere to recreate these
too.
Q: Thank you for taking the time to answer
my questions.
Comments