Skip to main content

Brinkmanship, flood insurance and science

The “Statement of Principles” on flood insurance agreed by the UK Government and the Association of British Insurers as a temporary measure in the year 2000 is due to expire on 31st July 2013. At the heart of this document is an undertaking by insurers to continue to provide cover for domestic property and small business customers as long the Government continues to manage the risk adequately. 
Image from Willis Research Network
Specifically the agreement says that cover will be provided for properties built before 2009 either if the risk is low or there is a commitment by the Environment Agency to reduce it to low within 5 years. ‘Low’ risk is arbitrarily defined as a property having a less than 1.3% annual chance of flooding, of which there are believed to be ~200,000 in England and Wales. In other words properties need to be protected against the 1 in 75 year event. 
Premiums can still vary with risk and the Statement makes no explicit provision for affordability, but the agreement does allow owners of some at risk properties to continue to obtain cover (and hence for buyers of these properties to obtain mortgages). An implicit assumption is that for properties built after 2009 the planning system has been operating effectively and has only allowed development in low risk zones.
Negotiations over a replacement were clearly going to the wire but today a Memorandum of Understanding was agreed between the ABI and the Government. This involves the setting up of a flood insurance pool known as ‘Flood Re’ for the ~200,000 ‘high risk’ properties. Premiums for the ‘high risk’ properties will be set based on council tax band. Flood Re will charge member firms an annual charge of £180 million which equates to a levy of £10.50 on annual household premiums.
This represents the estimated level of cross-subsidy that already exists between lower and high flood risk premiums. The scheme will be up and running by summer 2015 and in the meantime, ABI members will continue to meet their commitments to existing customers under the old Statement of Principles agreement.
Clearly the questions most commentators have fixated on are “who pays?” and “how much?”. However, as a flood scientist a far more interesting question is “how will we know?” and this applies as much to the existing Statement as to any new agreement. To put this another way: are we confident that we can determine to reasonable accuracy which properties are ‘at risk’? You might think this is typical academic hand wringing, but actually answering this question is, in my view, critical to running an effective flood insurance business.
For any given site the 1.3% annual chance flood will not have been observed and the Environment Agency and insurers use computer models that simulate flooding to calculate what such events look like. To use these you need to know how big the 1.3% annual probability flow is and to have a detailed 3D map of the terrain. The model then uses more or less complex variations on Newtonian physics to determine how this volume of water moves over the land surface.
At particular places such models can be great, but all predictions have error and because of uncertainties in both data and models this is certainly the case with flooding. How big can these errors be? Well, in a recent study we found the plausible range for the current 1% annual probability flow for the River Avon in Warwickshire to be between 310 and 425 m3s-1: enough to make a significant difference to the area predicted as inundated. Ok, this isn’t the 1.3% level exactly, but you get the idea. Models also get worse as you zoom out because to be computationally tractable at regional to national scales they have to simplify the representation of terrain and flow which introduces errors.
Irrespective of what the ABI and the Government do in the future, this situation doesn’t change. The question of how good national scale flood risk assessments need to be to confidently manage risk and set insurance premiums is still unanswered.
This blog is taken from WillisWire and written by Cabot Institute Director Professor Paul Bates, University of Bristol and Willis Research Network (WRN) Senior Academic. Edits by Tim Fewtrell, Chief Hydrologist at the WRN
Professor Paul Bates, Cabot Institute Director

Comments

  1. Well during floods it is evident irregularities by local authorities allows lot of damage So do you think that they should be held liable to compensate the damage?

    Thanks
    William Martin

    PPI Claims Made Simple

    ReplyDelete
  2. We had some pretty bad flooding in New Jersey during the recent hurricanes. not only was my basement flooded, but so was the first floor of my house. It's a good thing I had the sense to move everything to the second floor before leaving. Unfortunately, this also means I sustained a ton of flood damage, luckily the insurance company helped me find a great fire and water damage restoration company that made my house livable again in no time.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Diamond Battery – your ideas for future energy generation

On Friday 25th November, at the Cabot Institute Annual Lecture, a new energy technology was unveiled that uses diamonds to generate electricity from nuclear waste. Researchers at the University of Bristol, led by Prof. Tom Scott, have created a prototype battery that incorporates radioactive Nickel-63 into a diamond, which is then able to generate a small electrical current.
Details of this technology can be found in our official press release here: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2016/november/diamond-power.html.
Despite the low power of the batteries (relative to current technologies), they could have an exceptionally long lifespan, taking 5730 years to reach 50% battery power. Because of this, Professor Tom Scott explains:
“We envision these batteries to be used in situations where it is not feasible to charge or replace conventional batteries. Obvious applications would be in low-power electrical devices where long life of the energy source is needed, such as pacemakers, satellite…

Brexit: can research light the way?

What could Brexit mean for UK science? What impact will it have on UK fisheries? Could Brexit be bad news for emissions reductions? These were just some questions discussed at a Parliamentary conference last week, organised by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), the Commons Library and Parliament’s Universities Outreach team.

MPs researchers, Parliamentary staff and academic researchers from across the country came together to consider some of the key policy areas affected by the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

Why does academic research matter to Parliament? Given the unchartered waters that Parliament is facing as the UK prepares to withdraw from the EU, it is more important than ever that Parliamentary scrutiny and debate is informed by robust and reliable evidence.

Academic research is expected to meet rigorous standards of quality, independence and transparency. Although it is far from being the only source of evidence relevant to Parliament, it has vital ro…

A response to Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

The decision by President Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change puts the United States at odds with both science and global geopolitical norms.  The fundamentals of climate change remain unambiguous: greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing, they are increasing because of human action, the increase will cause warming, and that warming creates risks of extreme weather, food crises and sea level rise. That does not mean that scientists can predict all of the consequences of global warming, much work needs to be done, but the risks are both profound and clear. Nor do we know what the best solutions will be - there is need for a robust debate about the nature, fairness and efficacy of different decarbonisation policies and technologies as well as the balance of responsibility; the Paris Agreement, despite its faults with respect to obligation and enforcement, allowed great flexibility in that regard, which is why nearly every nation on Earth is a signatory.

Mor…