Saving Copenhagen from the rain: Q&A with WSP's Richard Behan

Heavy rain historically has been cause for concern among Copenhageners. To address this, the city has taken steps to adapt to more frequent and intense downpours by significantly improving flood preparedness. WSP's Richard Behan explains the Cloud Burst Management Plan.

Shutterstock: Claudine Van Massenhove

Q: What is the Cloud Burst Management Plan and how does it relate to integrated water management (IWM)?

A: The Cloud Burst Management Plan is a holistic climate adaptation strategy implemented in Copenhagen, Denmark, to manage intense, localised rainfall events, known as cloud bursts, which cause flash floods. This plan requires cross sector cooperation and new ways of thinking to manage water on the surface, in its intended location.

This program is a key element of the Copenhagen’s green infrastructure strategy, aimed at efficiently managing rainfall in proximity to its point of impact. This approach provides a way of working for integrated water management (IWM) initiatives, aiming to bring together various stakeholders like the Environment Agency, water utilities, local councils, Natural England, rivers trusts and drainage boards to address water management challenges holistically.

Interestingly, the New York City Cloudburst programme which followed took inspiration from the successful initiative in Denmark, with members of the teams who delivered the Copenhagen Cloudburst Management Plan supporting with the New York delivery.

Q: What challenges did project leaders face in implementing the Cloud Burst Management Plan in Copenhagen?

A: Project leaders in Copenhagen faced the challenge of convincing multiple organisations to invest in projects with long-term benefits that were not immediately visible. However, when the 2011 cloudburst resulted in damages of €1 billion, there was collective recognition that this situation demanded collaboration across various sectors – city planning, road authorities, utility services and municipalities surrounding Copenhagen. This task was particularly daunting due to the scale of the city, which included seven major river catchments and a population of 1.3 million people, along with a €2 billion investment across 350 projects.

Q: How were funding models structured for integrated water management projects in Copenhagen?

A: In Copenhagen, funding models involved the use of innovative approaches such as co-funding investment models and public-private partnerships. These models allowed for investment from various sources, including local authorities, utilities and private entities, to cover the cost of integrated stormwater management projects.

Q: What regulatory barriers exist for implementing integrated water management projects in the UK?

A: In the UK, there are no specific regulatory or legislative drivers to integrate siloed functions, and the Government’s Plan for Water acknowledges the legal framework for water and floods has evolved incrementally over time resulting in over 15 different plans and frameworks. It is also necessary to implement Schedule 3 of the Flood & Water Management Act 2010 which includes sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), as well as enhanced pollution management for highway runoff.

Other barriers include the limitations around Ofwat's five-year asset management plan (AMP) investment periods.Given the long-term change required and multiple projects necessary to deliver an IWM project successfully, five-year plans to reduce storm overflows can potentially miss the broader social and environmental opportunities made possible by IWM.

Finally, there are uncertainties surrounding the perceived performance of nature-based solutions (NBS) in meeting regulatory requirements. These barriers can hinder the long-term planning necessary for successful IWM projects.

Q: How does stakeholder engagement play a role in integrated water management projects?

A: Stakeholder engagement is crucial for IWM projects with water utilities, local authorities, river trusts, drainage boards and other relevant parties working together. Effective engagement ensures a diverse range of perspectives are considered, as well as long-term goals for water management.

Community engagement also plays an important role in creating a shared understanding of water challenges and building grassroots support for action. Encouraging individuals and local organisations to play an active role in water management can build a sense of ownership and stewardship over shared resources.

Q: How can organisations like WSP support clients in integrated water management delivery?

A: Organisations like WSP can offer expertise in integrated water management delivery. We have experience working on all facets including net zero, biodiversity offsetting, nature recovery and green finance as well as mainstream skills in water, environment and business case development.

We have worked with a range of clients in the field of Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) and planning. This understanding supports its work in roads, rail, housing, industry, energy, and water utilities.

We use living labs and open innovation approaches to assist clients in identifying and implementing effective IWM strategies.

Author: Richard Behan, WSP associate director, water strategic advisory

Behan is a Project Manager and Integrated Water Management specialist with over 20 years’ experience in Flood Risk Management, Water Company and environmental projects. He has previously sat on several Regional and National Groups and networked with water companies through Water UK Groups and UKWIR Research and Development (R&D) Projects. He also provided the UKWIR link with other Industry Research organisations through his representation on the Joint Defra/Environment Agency Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Research & Development Programme and the Theme Advisory Group (TAG).