
Policymakers at COP 25 have the opportunity to address and influence policies around infrastructure investments and national development plans. The Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance argues that a move from hazard protection only focused on grey infrastructure to integrated green and grey approaches where nature-based solutions are consistently incorporated is vital to achieve climate-smart, risk informed development.
Grey infrastructure refers to human-made structures using hard building materials. In the case of flood protection this includes barriers, levees, dikes, and dams, often made out of concrete, hence the “grey” label. Green infrastructure consists of more natural solutions and approaches that are multipurpose and aimed at delivering a range of ecosystem services, including, but not limited to, flood protection or resilience.
Grey infrastructure usually focuses on a single purpose or benefit only (i.e. a flood wall keeping water away from people and infrastructure) and may not be useful to provide other, more diverse benefits. It also can often provide communities and individuals with a false sense of security. People trust flood barriers to protect them from floods completely, meaning if, or rather when, the barrier fails they are underprepared and struggle to cope with the effects.
This so called levee-effect also leads to valuable assets or infrastructure such as homes, schools, and even hospitals being built in vulnerable areas, expected to be protected by grey infrastructure when they are in fact not fully protected to the level expected.
Building in these hazardous areas kept “safe” through levees, inhabited by communities unaware of the risk, increases the long-tail risk of flooding: low probability but severe effects. When grey infrastructure fails it often fails colossally, with catastrophic consequences. With evidence that floods are getting more severe as a result of climate change these failures are only going to increase.
Green (and blue, i.e. ocean) infrastructure, where water is given the space it needs and where areas are left in a more natural state, is smarter – it lacks the thresholds of grey infrastructure, there is no hard overload point at which it fails. Instead the protective benefits are more flexible. It allows for, and promotes, community flood resilience in a way grey approaches do not. Removing the false security provided by flood barriers gives people more opportunities not only to plan and prepare for floods, but to avoid developments in hazardous areas.
Unlike grey infrastructure green or nature based approaches have benefits far beyond that of flood protection. Climate smart adaptation or disaster risk reduction approaches can provide additional mitigation effects. For example mangroves planted to reduce coastal erosion are also useful in binding CO2. Additionally, green spaces, cleaner air, and access to water provide both mental and physical health benefits to those living in and near it and can reduce summer heat island effects in inner cities.
One of the strengths of green approaches is that they can be used both as alternatives and complements to traditional, grey infrastructure. It does not have to be one or the other.
One answer is that the cost and benefit of grey structures are easier to calculate, thus easier to fund, than those of green solutions. Human made, grey, infrastructure has a clearer asset life, depreciation, and return on investment. Also, it is easy to directly attribute absence of flooding to hard structures when they work.
It is a bit more complex to factor in the multiple benefits and untapped potential of nature based, green infrastructure, hence the financial case is harder to make. Methods and guidelines for such calculations are still in their infancy, but evolving quickly. It is harder to tell whether a community not being flooded is a direct result of green infrastructure. Additionally, nature based solutions are lacking longer-term track records, lacking the scientific, socio-political, and decision-making buy in required for things to change.
Based on Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance’s cross sectoral expertise in flood resilience and our efforts to implement climate resilient community programmes incorporating climate change and disaster risk management, we urge governments to include the following recommendations in their implementation of national policies and commitments, like the National Determined Contributions (NDCs) and for the private sector to include in Climate Action initiatives like the Coalition for Climate Resilient Investment (CCRI):
In summary, hazard protection infrastructure needs to shift from predominantly focusing on grey prevention structures (dams, levees, dykes) to integrated grey and green approaches where nature-based solutions are consistently incorporated into development planning. COP 25 is a great opportunity for policy makers to get the ball rolling.
Climate change is presenting one of the main challenges to our planet. In parallel, all regions of the world are projected to urbanise further....
A range of solutions to future flood risk are available ranging from blue-green infrastructure (BGI) as commonly incorporated in sustainable drainage...
This EEA report presents various options for reducing the risks of flooding with green infrastructure (GI) solutions in European floodplains and...
This Resource Guide for Planning, Designing and Implementing Green Infrastructure in Parks builds on the success of park and green infrastructure...
A new generation of infrastructure projects that harness the power of nature can help achieve development goals, including water security and climate...
There is increasing recognition of the potential of natural ecosystems to provide valuable services to urban areas. These ecosystem services may...
By any measure, 2020 has been a shocker for humanity. In this blog Practical Action's Colin McQuistan reflects on the challenges we've faced, and those we need to gear up to tackle as we app...
Back to the future: planning for long term impacts part one. This is the first in a series of four blogs about long term impacts of Practical Action’s work where we ask: what can we lea...
Back to the future: planning for long term impacts part two. In this second of four blogs on lasting changes, we discuss durability factors based on completed Disaster Risk Reduction proj...
Back to the future: planning for long term impacts part three. In this third of four blogs on lasting changes, we discuss what we can do now to better embed “long term” thinking in ou...
Comments