The Agency recognised that the way flood risks are often described, using percentages and probabilities of being flooded, are not very meaningful for the public. It described 18 Q 27: C&AG’s Report, para 16 19 Letter dated 27 January from Environment Agency to Committee 20 Q 30; C&AG’s Report, para 2.4–2.5; Letter dated 27 January from Environment Agency to Committee 21 Qq 41–42; C&AG’s Report, para 2.8, 3.16; 22 Q 41; C&AG’s Report, para 2.8 23 Qq 43–44 Managing food risk 13 how it is moving...

The Agency recognised that the way flood risks are often described, using percentages and probabilities of being flooded, are not very meaningful for the public. It described 18 Q 27: C&AG’s Report, para 16 19 Letter dated 27 January from Environment Agency to Committee 20 Q 30; C&AG’s Report, para 2.4–2.5; Letter dated 27 January from Environment Agency to Committee 21 Qq 41–42; C&AG’s Report, para 2.8, 3.16; 22 Q 41; C&AG’s Report, para 2.8 23 Qq 43–44 Managing food risk 13 how it is moving away from this way of describing flood risk. It now focuses on whether a community is at risk and what the community needs to do to prepare for future f Type: conclusion | Number: 21 | Response status: under_consideration Government response: 5.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Spring 2022 5.2 The department and the Agency are developing a framework for understanding overall flood risk. This framework uses an improved method for calculating