Ladies and Gentlemen

It is a great pleasure for me to be here at the workshop on climate risk management strategies for Kolkata. It is my first official visit to Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC). And I must say that like my predecessors I am too very impressed by KMC’s enthusiasm and genuine interest in embracing new concepts and emerging ideas when it comes to addressing climate vulnerability of this great city.

The UN estimates that there are 3,351 cities located in low-elevation coastal zones around the world. The top 10, in terms of population exposed to coastal flood hazard, are Mumbai, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Miami, Ho Chi Minh City, Kolkata, New York, Osaka-Kobe, Alexandria and New Orleans. The cities of Tokyo, New York, Mumbai, Shanghai, Kolkata and Buenos Aires are the most vulnerable to storm surge.

India is one of the world’s most vulnerable countries. It has faced several types of extreme weather events in 2015 and 2016 – from floods to unseasonal rainfalls to deadliest heat-waves to snow storms. As per a report by Earth Security Group, India is incurring losses of about US $9-10 billion annually due to extreme weather incidents.

In 2015, the heaviest rainfall in over a century caused extreme flooding in Tamil Nadu leading to an estimated US$ 710 million in insurance claims.

Climate risks, as we all know, have the potential to severely dent urban systems and pose serious threats to urban infrastructure and importantly the life of citizens. This is especially true for cities like Kolkata that are more susceptible to the effects of climate risk which imposes both social and economic costs. Cyclone Aila, in 2009, left 150,000 people homeless and without livelihood in this part of West Bengal. Lloyd’s City Risk Index has estimated that storms and floods will put a huge burden on Kolkata’s GDP.

Many of you would be aware that under our UK-Kolkata Municipal Corporation Programme on low carbon and climate resilient Kolkata, PwC and TARU conducted a GIS-based and ground level survey to assess the level of climate risks the city is exposed to and came up with a Climate-Induced Disaster Management Plan for the city. You will get a glimpse of this interesting management strategy later in the session when TARU presents key highlights and recommendations. There is one recommendation that I would like to mention here which is directly linked to this workshop today—and that is of climate risk insurance.

With a large urban poor population and majority of urban infrastructure exceedingly vulnerable to climate risks, it is important for cities to prepare for calamities and safeguard citizens and investments through innovative approaches. One such approach is the use of advanced climate modelling and risk assessment at the municipal level coupled with effective insurance tools built into the city’s disaster recovery and relief schemes.

On climate modelling, we are exploring ways of using the expertise of UK Met Office.

And on risk assessment, we have undertaken this study with PWC to:

• understand the extent of climate risks faced by urban infrastructure in five pilot Indian cities – Kolkata, Chennai, Pune, Patna and Kochi
• sensitise key stakeholders on the importance of and options for mitigating climate induced risks for infrastructure through risk insurance

This workshop is part of this endeavour.

We need to work together to strengthen resilient policies of cities against climatic events. We need to support and help each other to invest in risk reduction and introduce innovative steps and technologies to enable cities cope with disasters.

Further information

Climate Smart Disaster Management Strategy for Kolkata: A project was recently undertaken for preparation of a climate smart disaster management strategy for Kolkata under the UK KMC memorandum of understanding (MoU) for low Carbon and climate resilience Kolkata. The project was implemented by PwC and TARU Leading Edge Pvt Ltd.

The project aimed at analysing implications of climate change for extreme weather in the city, understanding the city’s preparedness for extreme events, and recommending an action plan for better preparedness and management to reduce current and future vulnerabilities taking into account the on-going disaster risk management efforts.

As part of the climate vulnerability assessment under this project, a ward level mapping of climate vulnerabilities was done in a sample of 5 wards in Kolkata. The methodology adopted combined ground level surveys coupled with satellite imagery, as well as community engagement and participation to arrive at conclusions on vulnerability as well as local needs with respect to climatic disaster preparedness.

Key findings of the study depicted the following:

• on an average, 2 extreme rainfall (~64 to124 mm) events were found to occur every year ranging from 0 to 11 days per year. Most of the city drains are old and were designed to carry much less volume – probable rainfall of a quarter inch (6 mm) an hour or 150 mm in a day. The absence of adequate drainage infrastructure makes the city highly vulnerable to flooding – with low income settlements being particularly affected during cyclones and floods.

• on an average around 21 man days per employee are lost in a year. Poor especially daily wage earners are disproportionately more affected by these events. Skin diseases and water borne diseases affect majority of the households on an annual basis. Informal economies (primarily hawkers) report a revenue loss of 30% during water logging periods.

• simulations of Kolkata comparable to rainfall levels in Chennai during recent floods (2015) indicate that more than 90% of the city will be flooded, most affected regions being the west, south and northern parts of the city.

• Heat Island Effect evident – The city is also vulnerable to climate induced heat island effect especially in pockets where dense urbanisation has taken place. {The city’s open space has declined from 25% (1990) to 10% (2012)}. Heat island assessment as part of the project indicated a temperature difference to the tune of 2-6 degrees between different areas within the city during peak summers.

Some of the key recommendations include:

• establishment of Early warning systems and emergency operation centres
• augmenting number of automated weather monitoring stations and river gauge stations across the city
• installation of Automated tidal flow prevention systems at locations where storm water drains / sewage connect with the canals / river
• effective drainage area planning
• widening of roads to ensure minimum access roads for fire brigade and ambulances
• ward-level stormwater management measures to encourage preventative action, including behavioral change amongst residents so as to encourage the safe disposal of waste
• Heat and Health Action Plan for the city to address public health impacts of heat island effect.

KMC has already gone ahead with implementation plans and would be soon commencing work on establishment of early warning systems, drainage area planning through climate smart landuse planning, and capacity building, with support from an international funding agency.

Similarly, as part of follow up action on the project, UK government has also initiated a project aiming at building financial resilience of 5 Indian cities including Kolkata, through introduction of tools such as climate risk insurance to safeguard infrastructure investments by the city.

The findings of the disaster management study were presented at a stakeholder workshop on climate risk management held at KMC on 16 February 2017. The workshop discussed the key findings and recommendations of the disaster management study and future action plan by KMC for better disaster preparedness of the city.

For further technical information please contact Haimanti Poddar on 0-98314-77692.

Summary

Between 16:29 and 17:58 hrs on 7 June 2016, three passenger trains passed over a section of the single line at Baildon, where part of the supporting embankment had been washed away by flood water. This left one of the rails unsupported over a length of between 3 and 4 metres. None of the trains derailed and no one was injured.

The washout occurred following a period of intense rainfall between around 15:30 and 16:00 hrs that afternoon. A member of the public had noticed the washed out track and had reported it to the local Fire and Rescue Service who had then informed Network Rail shortly before 16:30 hrs. Around the same time, the driver of a train on that line reported there was flooding in the area, with the water being above the level of the rails. Network Rail stopped train movements and sent staff to inspect the track at the location reported by the train driver. The inspection found that the flood water had receded significantly, but did not identify the washout because it was at a different location. At 17:30 hrs, the line was reopened for use at its normal maximum speed of 50 mph (80 km/h).

At 17:45 hrs, a second train passed over the damaged section of track. The driver did not report any fault, but a call from a member of the public was received by the local police stating they had witnessed this train passing over the unsupported section. The message was passed to Network Rail, but before the line was again blocked to traffic, a third train passed over it. This train also had not been stopped from running over the washout. The driver of this train saw the washout, but was unable to stop his train, passing over it at a speed of 38 mph (62 km/h). He subsequently stopped the train and made an emergency call to the signaller.

These near miss incidents occurred because the reports of the damaged track from members of the public, via the emergency services, were not dealt with appropriately by railway controllers. The track damage was similar to a previous washout at the same location that occurred in August 2012. Since that incident, no action had been taken on the recommendations considered by Network Rail to prevent a recurrence.

Recommendations

As a result of its investigation, the RAIB has made three recommendations to Network Rail, relating to:

• measures to minimise the risk of further washouts at Baildon
• improving the emergency response to incidents on the track by providing Network Rail responders with accurate location information
• improving the effectiveness of communicating safety critical information between incident controllers, signallers and drivers.

The RAIB has also identified three learning points. Two are for control office staff about the importance of listening carefully to safety critical messages, and the need to continuously monitor and maintain standards in safety critical communication. The third is for duty holders, regarding the requirement to inform the RAIB of incidents which, in slightly different circumstances, could have resulted in a more serious outcome.

Notes to editors

1. The sole purpose of RAIB investigations is to prevent future accidents and incidents and improve railway safety. RAIB does not establish blame, liability or carry out prosecutions.
2. RAIB operates, as far as possible, in an open and transparent manner. While our investigations are completely independent of the railway industry, we do maintain close liaison with railway companies and if we discover matters that may affect the safety of the railway, we make sure that information about them is circulated to the right people as soon as possible, and certainly long before publication of our final report.
3. For media enquiries, please call 01932 440015.

Newsdate: 16 February 2017

Fishing without a licence has landed seven Lincolnshire anglers with penalties totalling more than £4,000, the Environment Agency reports.

Lee Bakes of Munster Court in Grimsby, Wayne Muress of Weelsby Street in Grimsby, Gareth Browne of Wellington Street in Grimsby, Lyndsey Russell of Parker Street in Cleethorpes, Ashley Ardon of Steve Newton Avenue in Horncastle, Dean Pocklington of Small End in Boston, and David Freeman of Dennis Estate in Boston, were all guilty under Section 27(1)(a) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.

They were caught at Pigeon Pond in North Somercoates, Oasis Lakes in North Somercoates, River Bain in Horncastle, and Westwood Lakes in Wyberton.

They were spotted by Environment Agency bailiffs and PCSOs on regular patrols designed to catch unlicensed anglers in the act – and protect the sport for those who do follow the rules.

The seven offenders were tried on Monday 13 February at Boston Magistrates’ Court. Fines totalled £2,900 but with costs and victim surcharges included, the five paid out penalties totalling £4,086.29. A rod licence currently costs from just £27.

Adam Basham, Environment Agency enforcement team leader, said:

Monday was a good day for the near-million anglers that fish legally every year, respecting each other and the sport. There really is no excuse – if you don’t have a licence, pick one up from the Post Office or online before we pick you up.

It makes no sense to have the embarrassment of a court visit, a criminal conviction and a bill for potentially thousands of pounds when an annual licence is currently just £27. We think these cheats will think twice before picking up a rod illegally again and if they don’t, our officers are ready and waiting.

The money from rod licence sales supports fish, fisheries and fishing, and protects the future of the sport. A small number of anglers refuse to buy a licence, cheating the sport and their fellow anglers.

For the minority who flout the rules, the most common offence is fishing without a valid licence, which could land them with a fine of up to £2,500 and a criminal record.

In 2015/16, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire enforcement officers checked 3,710 licences and reported 73 for fishing illegally, bringing in fines and costs totalling £16,810.

Last year in England, the Environment Agency checked more than 62,000 rod licences and prosecuted more than 1,900 anglers for rod and line offences, resulting in fines and costs in excess of £500,000.

Any angler aged 12 or over, fishing on a river, canal or still water needs a licence. A full rod licence costs from just £27 (concessions available) and is available from the Post Office either online or in a local branch, or by phoning 0344 800 5386.

Money from rod licence sales is invested in England’s fisheries and is used to fund a wide range of projects to improve facilities for anglers including protecting stocks from illegal fishing, pollution and disease; restoring fish stocks through re-stocking; eradicating invasive species; and fish habitat improvements. Rod licence money is also used to fund the Angling Trust to provide information about fishing and to encourage participation in the sport.

To help crack down on unlicensed fishing, the Environment Agency urges people to report illegal activity by calling its incident hotline on 0800 80 70 60 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

ENDS

Notes to editors:

• Lee Bakes, who was proved guilty in absence, was fined £440 and ordered to pay costs of £127.47, as well as a victim surcharge of £44, making the total penalty £611.47. Mr Bakes was caught on 15 July 2016 at the Pigeon Pond, North Somercotes.

• Wayne Muress, who was proved guilty in absence, was fined £440 and ordered to pay costs of £127.47, as well as a victim surcharge of £44, making the total penalty £611.47. Mr Muress was caught on 15 July 2016 at the Pigeon Pond, North Somercotes.

• Gareth Browne, who was proved guilty in absence, was fined £440 and ordered to pay costs of £127.47, as well as a victim surcharge of £44, making the total penalty £611.47. Mr Browne was caught on 15 July 2016 at the Pigeon Pond, North Somercotes.

• Lyndsey Russell, who was proved guilty in absence, was fined £440 and ordered to pay costs of £127.47, as well as a victim surcharge of £44, making the total penalty £611.47. Ms Russell was caught on 4 July at Oasis Lakes, North Somercoates.

• Ashley Ardon, who was proved guilty in absence, was fined £440 and ordered to pay costs of £127.47, as well as a victim surcharge of £44, making the total penalty £611.47. Mr Ardon was caught on 6 July 2016 on the River Bain, Horncastle.

• Dean Pocklington, who pleaded guilty, was fined £440 and ordered to pay costs of £127.47, as well as a victim surcharge of £44, making the total penalty £611.47. Mr Pocklington was caught on 6 July 2016 on the River Bain, Horncastle.

• David Freeman, who pleased guilty, was fined £260 and ordered to pay costs of £127.47, as well as a victim surcharge of £30, making the total penalty, £611.47. Mr Freeman was caught on 13 February 2017 at Westwood Lakes, Wyberton.

• All were found fishing for freshwater fish or eels with an unlicensed instrument in a place where fishing is regulated, contrary to Section 27(1)(a) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.