Flood risk management in Europe: Similarities and differences between the STAR-FLOOD consortium countries (original) (raw)
Related papers
E3S Web of Conferences, 2016
European countries, especially urban areas, face increasing flood risks due to urbanization, increase of exposure and damage potential, and the effects of climate change. In literature and in practice, it is argued that a diversification of Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs) makes countries more flood resilient. The latter requires innovations in existing Flood Risk Governance Arrangements, development of new arrangements and the coordination of these arrangements, but it also requires these arrangements to be tailored to their physical and institutional context. Within the EU FP7 project STAR-FLOOD (2012-2016), a comparative analysis and evaluation of flood risk governance in Belgium, England, France, The Netherlands, Poland and Sweden has been conducted. The project identified at least seven key issues that are relevant for all researched countries (and probably also beyond). These key issues deal with the topics of (i) diversifying Flood Risk Management Strategies (ii) establishing FRQQHFWLYLW\ EHWZHHQ DFWRUV OHYHOV DQG VHFWRUV WKURXJK ZKDW ZH FRLQ ³EULGJLQJ PHFKDQLVPV´ LLL DFKLHYLQJ FRproduction between public and private actors; (iv) improving fragmented and often non-enforceable rule systems; (v) optimising available resources for FRM; (vi) operationalising WKH QRWLRQ RI ³GLYHUVLILFDWLRQ RI)50 VWUDWHJLHV´ LQ D country-specific way; (vii) follow general design principles for improving FRM that are sufficiently tailored to local circumstances. Drawing on all project deliverables, this paper will briefly review each key issue, discuss salient similarities and differences between the countries and point at ways forward.
Flood risk governance arrangements in Europe
The STAR-FLOOD (Strengthening and Redesigning European Flood Risk Practices Towards Appropriate and Resilient Flood Risk Governance Arrangements) project, funded by the European Commission, investigates strategies for dealing with flood risk in six European countries: Belgium, the UK, France, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden and in 18 vulnerable urban regions in these countries. The project aims to describe, analyse, explain, and evaluate the main similarities and differences between the selected EU Member States in terms of development and performance of flood risk governance arrangements. It also discusses the scientific and societal importance of these similarities and differences. Attention is paid to identification and characterization of shifts in flood risk governance arrangements and in flood risk management strategies and to determination of triggering factors and restraining factors. An assessment of a change of resilience and appropriateness (legitimacy, effectiveness, efficiency) of flood risk governance arrangements in Poland is presented and comparison with other European countries is offered.
This document reflects only the authors' views and not those of the European Community. This work may rely on data from sources external to the STAR-FLOOD project Consortium. Members of the Consortium do not accept liability for loss or damage suffered by any third party as a result of errors or inaccuracies in such data. The information in this document is provided "as is" and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and neither the European Community nor any member of the STAR-FLOOD Consortium is liable for any use that may be made of the information.
Flood risk management strategies across boundaries: a research approach
Floods are the most frequent and damaging of all types of natural disasters and annually affect the lives of millions all over the globe. Against this background, enhanced climate variability and climate change are expected to increase the frequency and intensity of floods. The situation is further complicated by the transboundary nature of water, making transboundary cooperation on integrated flood risk management not only necessary, but highly beneficial as well. Unfortunately, numerous challenges hamper effective transboundary cooperation in general and cooperation on transboundary flood management in particular, thereby increasing vulnerability to floods. Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs) are designed to make vulnerable urban regions more resilient to flooding. This likely requires changes in their institutional embedding. Insights into this institutional embedding of FRMSs so far is, however, rather limited and fragmented. In this paper we argue that such insights can be...
Water, 2020
There is lively scholarly and societal debate on the need to diversify flood risk management strategies to contribute to more flood resilience. The latter requires dedicated governance strategies related to which relevant insights are currently emerging. However, more systematic theoretical and empirical insights on how to specify and implement governance strategies are still urgently needed. The Special Issue 'Flood Risk Governance for More Resilience' has brought together nine contributions by renowned flood risk governance scholars that together help to unpack lessons about these governance strategies. This Special Issue's editorial introduces the debate on flood risk governance for more resilience and presents the key findings of the individual contributions to the Special Issue. We show that flood risk governance arrangements in specific regions in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Bangladesh, France, and Mexico are gradually evolving. A common denominator is that more horizontal forms of governance are under development in which a more diverse array of public and private actors-including citizens, as well as different sectors, is becoming involved. Efforts are underway to establish connectivity between actors, levels, and sectors, both through regional and international exchanges. While lessons on how to do the former successfully are emerging, we notice that these should still be unpacked more fully. Moreover, there is still a need to establish a more open and inclusive societal debate on societal preferences regarding flood risk protection in which all actors with a stake in flood risk governance processes and outcomes can participate.
Constructing risks – Internalisation of flood risks in the flood risk management plan
Environmental Science & Policy, 2017
Traditional flood protection methods have focused efforts on different measures to keep water out of floodplains. However, the European Flood Directive challenges this paradigm (Hartmann and Driessen, 2013). Accordingly, flood risk management plans should incorporate measures brought about by collaboration with local governments to develop and implement these measures (Johann and Leismann, 2014). One of the challenges of these plans is getting and keeping stakeholders involved in the processes related to flood risk management. This research shows that that this challenge revolves around how flood risks are socially constructed. Therefore it is essential to understand and explain the risk perception of stakeholders. System Theory by Luhmann provides the analytical distinction between 'internal risk' and 'external danger' as key concepts to understand whether or not stakeholders will take action (Luhmann, 1993). While perceptions of 'external danger' will not lead to action, perceptions of 'internal risk' urge stakeholders to take action. The cases of the rivers Lippe and Emscher in the dense populated region between Duisburg and Dortmund in Germany illustrate how these theoretical concepts materialise in practice. This contribution shows how flood risks are socially constructed and how this construction is influenced by the European flood risk management plan. While clearing up some of the difficulties from the Flood Directive, the research shows a gap between the Flood Directive and the current theory and planning practice, which needs to be addressed in further research. 1. Introduction: traditional protection and the new flood risk paradigm Due to climate change, extreme weather events will continue to increase in frequency (IPCC, 2014). In Germany and Central-Europe, the frequency of flood events doubled since 1980 (Munich Re, 2014). Floods are the most common natural hazard in Europe and account for the highest number of casualties and economic damage (STAR-FLOOD, 2014). Technical means for controlling extreme floods is limited, which became clear during several extreme weather events in past years (Pahl-Wostl, 2007). In the 1990s, one flood in Germany was described as a 'once-in-a-century' event. The press gave the same title to the floods in 2002 (Deutsche Welle, 2013). In some locations, the flood events in 2013 were worse than in 2002 (Merz et al., 2014). However, some places were better off, such as the city of Dresden, which was heavily affected in 2002 (Pahl-Wostl, 2007), but better prepared in 2013 This, however, was at the expense of areas downstream (Merz et al., 2014; Munich Re, 2014). The inability to cope with increasing flood risks in Europe solely with technical flood protection-predominantly focusing on dikes-fosters a need for an ongoing paradigm shift in how to deal with floods (Patt and Jüpner, 2013). This shift may move the discussion from flood resistance towards flood resilience, or from flood protection to flood risk management (Jüpner, 2005; Hartmann and Spit, 2015). This would mean not just defending against floods, but at the same time managing the flood risks in such a way that in case of a flood, the damages are minimised (Klijn and Koppenjan, 2012). This includes governing the areas behind the dikes (Tempels and Hartmann, 2014). The European Commission released the directive on the assessment and management of flood risks (Directive, 2007/50/EC), referred to as the Floods Directive (Hartmann and Spit, 2016). It aims to reduce the adverse consequences of floods to preserve human health and life, the environment, cultural heritage, economic activity and infrastructure. According to the directive, each member state has to accomplish three stages. These stages consist of creating (1) a preliminary flood risk assessment, (2) flood hazard maps and flood risk maps, and (3) a flood risk management plan for each catchment. The last stage is crucial as it institutionalises an ongoing paradigm shift from flood protection
In Europe increasing flood risks challenge societies to diversify their Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs). Such a diversification implies that actors not only focus on flood defence, but also and simultaneously on flood risk prevention, mitigation, preparation and recovery. There is much literature on the implementation of specific strategies and measures as well as on flood risk governance more generally. What is lacking, though, is a clear overview of the complex set of governance challenges which may result from a diversification and alignment of FRM strategies. This paper aims to address this knowledge gap. It elaborates on potential processes and mechanisms for coordinating the activities and capacities of actors that are involved on different levels and in different sectors of flood risk governance, both concerning the implementation of individual strategies and the coordination of the overall set of strategies. It identifies eight overall coordination mechanisms that have proven to be useful in this respect.
Assessing Stability and Dynamics in Flood Risk Governance
Water Resources Management, 2014
European urban agglomerations face increasing flood risks due to urbanization and the effects of climate change. These risks are addressed at European, national and regional policy levels. A diversification and alignment of Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs) can make vulnerable urban agglomerations more resilient to flooding, but this may require new Flood Risk Governance Arrangements (FRGAs) or changes in existing ones. While much technical knowledge on Flood Risk Management is available, scientific insights into the actual and/or necessary FRGAs so far are rather limited and fragmented. This article addresses this knowledge gap by presenting a research approach for assessing FRGAs. This approach allows for the integration of insights from policy scientists and legal scholars into one coherent framework that can be used to identify Flood Risk Management Strategies and analyse Flood Risk Governance Arrangements. In addition, approaches for explaining and evaluating (shifts in) FRGAs are introduced. The research approach is illustrated by referring to the rise of the Dutch risk-based approach called 'multi-layered safety' and more specifically its application in the city of Dordrecht. The article is concluded with an overview of potential next steps, including comparative analyses of FRGAs in different regions. Insights in these FRGAS are crucial to enable the identification of action perspectives for flood risk governance for actors at the level of the EU, its member states, regional authorities, and public-private partnerships.