Flood Risk and Water Management in the Netherlands A 2012 update (original) (raw)
Flood Risk Management in the Netherlands
Introduction: On 31 st January 1953, a massive storm surge caused a devastating flood (the greatest natural disaster in the country in the 20 th century) in the Netherlands, Belgium, England, and Scotland which caused the death of 2551 people among more than 1800 people who died and approximately 100,000 people became homeless in the Netherlands and the nation became shocked and speechless because of the catastrophic impact, which prepared them to rebuild their country to withstand such catastrophe in future. Wind, high tide, and low pressure in the sea caused a flood that was a height of 5.6m (18.4ft) above mean sea level. In the country, about 100 km of seawall collapsed and more than 50 dikes were washed away [1].
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.
In search of robust flood risk management alternatives for the Netherlands
The Netherlands' policy for flood risk management is being revised in view of a sustainable development against a background of climate change, sea level rise and increasing socio-economic vulnerability to floods. This calls for a thorough policy analysis, which can only be adequate when there is agreement about the "framing" of the problem and about the strategic alternatives that should be taken into account.
The European flood risk directive: challenges for research
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 2009
In recent years, flood management has shifted from protection against floods to managing the risks of floods. In Europe, this shift is reflected in the Flood risk directive of October 2007 (2007/60/EC; FRD). The FRD requires EU Member States to undertake a preliminary assessment of flood risks and, for areas with a significant flood risk, 5 to prepare flood hazard and flood risk maps and flood risk management plans. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the FRD and discuss the challenges that the FRD poses to research. These challenges include the issue how to define and measure "flood risk", the selection of alternatives to be assessed, coping with uncertainty, risk communication, nurturing trust and promoting collaboration. These research chal-10
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.
Diversity in flood risk management approaches is often considered to be a strength. However, in some national settings, and especially for transboundary rivers, variability and incompatibility of approaches can reduce the effectiveness of flood risk management. Placed in the context of increasing flood risks, as well as the potential for flooding to undermine the European Union's sustainable development goals, a desire to increase societal resilience to flooding has prompted the introduction of a common European Framework. We provide a legal and policy analysis of the implementation of the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) in six countries: Belgium (Flemish region), England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. Evaluation criteria from existing legal and policy literature frame the study of the Directive and its effect on enhancing or constraining societal resilience by using an adaptive governance approach. These criteria are initially used to analyze the key components of the EU approach, before providing insight of the implementation of the Directive at a national level. Similarities and differences in the legal translation of European goals into existing flood risk management are analyzed alongside their relative influence on policy and practice. The research highlights that the effect of the Floods Directive on increasing societal resilience has been nationally variable, in part because of its focus on procedural obligations, rather than on more substantive requirements. Analysis shows that despite a focus on transboundary river basin management, existing traditions of flood risk management have overridden objectives to harmonize flood risk management in some cases. The Directive could be strengthened by requiring more stringent cooperation and providing the competent authorities in international river basin districts with more power. Despite some shortcomings in directly affecting flood risk outcomes, the Directive has positively stimulated discussion and flood risk management planning in countries that were perhaps lagging behind.
The European Floods Directive and Opportunities offered by
2013
List of figures, boxes and tables 2 Abbreviations 3 Acknowledgments 4 Abstract 4 Summary of the report 5 1 Main drivers of flood events 7 1.1 Extreme precipitation: past trends and projections for Europe 8 1.2 Human action increases vulnerability 1.3 Urbanization and cities 2 The role of land use planning in flood risk management 2.1 Preventive land use planning 2.2 Prevention is cheaper than aftercare measures 2.3 Multi-scale approaches to manage flooding 2.4 Structural and non structural approaches: finding the right balance 2.5 Mitigation under climate change 2.6 Examples of flood prevention from different countries 3 Specific European policies on floods 3.1 The European Floods Directive 3.2 European Floods Directive and European Water Framework Directive 3.3 The three step approach of the European Floods Directive 3.4 The importance of stakeholders' participation in the flood mapping process 3.5 State of the art on the implementation of the European Floods Directive 3.6 Integrating adaptation to Climate Change in European flood policy 4 Flood management and land use planning in selected countries 4.1 Flood mapping in selected European countries and connection with land use planning 4.2 Overview of the stakeholders' interviews and introduction to case studies 4.3 Geographical context and law in force dealing with floods in selected countries 4.3.1 Germany 4.3.2 Italy 4.3.3 Switzerland 4.4 Case studies 4.4.1 Introduction to case studies 4.4.2 Germany 4.4.3 Italy 4.4.4 Switzerland 4.5 Considerations on analyzed case studies 5 Conclusions and recommendations for land use planners 6 References Annex ANNEX 1-EU funded research projects on Floods and Urban Areas (adaptation) ANNEX 2-Floods Directive: timetable for implementation ANNEX 3-Interviews ANNEX 4-Maps
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.
Assessment of the Netherlands’ Flood Risk Management Policy Under Global Change
AMBIO, 2012
Climate change and sea level rise urge lowlying countries to draft adaption policies. In this context, we assessed whether, to what extent and when the Netherlands' current flood risk management policy may require a revision. By applying scenarios on climate change and socio-economic development and performing flood simulations, we established the past and future changes in flood probabilities, exposure and consequences until about 2050. We also questioned whether the present policy may be extended much longer, applying the concept of 'policy tipping points'. Climate change was found to cause a significant increase of flood risk, but less than economic development does. We also established that the current flood risk management policy in the Netherlands can be continued for centuries when the sea level rise rate does not exceed 1.5 m per century. However, we also conclude that the present policy may not be the most attractive strategy, as it has some obvious flaws.
A Framework for Integrated Flood Risk Management
2010
Little of the European coast line or land area has escaped human influence, with increasing pressures over generations of settlement, agriculture, industry and commerce. The pressures include water and flood management activities which control the extent and frequency of floods and the drainage of water from the land. Internationally, policies and practice in flood risk management are evolving in response to many drivers including climatic forcing (changes in precipitation, sea level rise etc), increasing potential for damage, decreasing acceptance of and resilience to flooding, competing demands on public expenditure and ageing of flood defence infrastructure. An important development of policy is the European Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks, which entered into force across the EU in November 2007. Full integration of flood risk management with other aspects of water management and spatial planning leads to the concept of integrated flood risk management. ...
Dutch flood protection policy and measures based on risk assessment
E3S Web of Conferences, 2016
The Dutch Flood Protection Programme (DFPP) of The Netherlands is aimed at improving flood protection structures up to the newly derived safety standards. It is expected that roughly 50% of the primary flood protection structures need reinforcement with respect to newly derived safety standards. On a national level the necessary projects are ranked based on the actual flooding risk and fitted within the budget constraints. Additional goals of the DFPP are to improve performance in project management, to enhance the quality of more integral solutions and to expand the cooperation between all authorities involved. The DFPP is an alliance of the Dutch Water Authorities and the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, but also a methodology in which the Ministry, regional water authorities, scientific institutes, consultancy and construction companies participate.
In the light of increasing cooperation between the United States (US) and the Netherlands, particularly between knowledge institutes, the Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Water Management in the Netherlands requested COT Institute for Safety, Security, and Crisis Management (COT), to initiate research with a number of US disaster research institutes. COT took this challenge and developed the research project Learning from a large scale flood exercise in the Netherlands. The primary objective of this research project is to enhance knowledge in the Netherlands of strategies to effectively deal with (possible) floods by exchanging knowledge regarding key processes, best practices, and complexities of flood disaster management and identify areas, within this field, that necessitate additional research. Against this background representatives from two US institutions, Disaster Research Center (DRC) at University of Delaware and the Institute for Crisis, Disaster and Risk Managemen...
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 2007
Extreme river discharges, floods and debates about climate change triggered a shift in flood protection policy in the Netherlands from infrastructural to spatial measures. The new policy directive of 'Room for the River', details of which were introduced in 2000, should prepare the country for future peak discharges. In order to deal with 'residual risk', the concept of 'calamity polders' for 'controlled flooding' was launched in the same year. In this contribution we discuss the local protests against these plans against the backdrop of changed thinking about flood protection. We analyse the emergence of the concept, the commission established to inquire into the calamity polder plans, as well as local resistance and the counter-expertise it mobilised. We conclude that the choice to limit public participation in the debates about calamity polders has backfired. It has contributed to the shelving of the plans while increasing public distrust of flood policy. At the same time this episode has created some awareness among policy-makers of the importance of dialogue with the inhabitants of areas affected by flood policy measures.