Перлина дерев’яного зодчества та її рятівники

Церкву Різдва Пресвятої Богородиці жителі Тулинець здавна звели на вершині одного з пагорбів. Вони хотіли, щоб їхня святиня сягала неба. І сьогодні вона виринає, немов диво перед зором проїжджаючого селом у напрямку до Дніпра

Про авторів номера

Because of climate change, extreme weather events and urban sprawl, urban areas have to deal with increasing flood risks. It is argued, both in literature and in practice that these risks can no longer be dealt with by focusing solely on flood defences (building dikes, dams, embankments etc.). Actors at various levels (international, European, national as well as regional) wish for and make efforts at a diversification of Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs). There is currently debate, both within European countries and at EU level, about the potential additional role to be played by flood prevention measures such as pro-active spatial planning (building permits), flood mitigation (e.g. urban green infrastructures, adaptive buildings), flood preparation and flood recovery. It is generally argued that a diversification of FRMSs can make urban agglomerations more resilient to flood risks. However, the realisation of broadening of FRMSs leads to governance challenges. Whereas flood defence is often institutionalised in a highly state-led governance arrangement (centralized or decentralized mode of governance) with a strong role for the water sector, this is much less the case for the other FRMSs. Pro-active spatial planning asks for integration between water management and spatial planning, often in combination with involvement of private parties and civil society actors. Flood mitigation, preparation and recovery are also often institutionalised via various forms of public-private governance or self-governance. On top of this, pleas are made to link these various governance arrangements together in order to align the FRMSs, requiring even more coordination, or meta-governance. It is however not clear under which conditions such meta-governance can be successful. The aim of this presentation is to explore a) the conditions that enable a successful diversification of FRMSs, and b) how meta-governance challenges are currently being addressed in the Netherlands and the UK. First, we will structure the debates in relevant literature by the development of a classification scheme of governance challenges. Second, we will elaborate this scheme for a diversification of FRMSs from flood defence towards flood prevention, mitigation, preparation and recovery. Third, we will reflect on how the Netherlands and England successfully address these meta-governance challenges. These cases show that while diversification practices may be complicated, conditions under which such a diversification may take place can be created. Future comparative empirical research is needed though to further refine these conditions and we therefore conclude our paper with a research agenda

Drinkwater innovaties voor de huishoudelijke eindgebruiker: inventarisatie van praktijkvoorbeelden

KIWA Waterresearch coördineert het Bedrijfstakonderzoek (BTO) voor de drinkwatersector. In het kader van het BTO is de onderzoekslijn Client 21 opgezet, waarbinnen verschillende klantgerelateerde kennisvragen aan bod komen. Toekomstig klantgedrag is één van die kennisvragen. Om inzicht te verkrijgen in toekomstig klantgedrag laat Kiwa Water Research het onderhavige onderzoek ‘gedragspraktijk watergebruik’ uitvoeren, waarvan dit rapport het eerste product i

Recurrent Governance Challenges in the Implementation and Alignment of Flood Risk Management Strategies: a Review

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

Синтез и антиинфекционное протективное действие β-циклогексилметил- и β-2-циклогексилэтилгликозидов мурамоилдипептида

Осуществлен синтез β-циклогексилметил- и β-2-циклогексилэтилгликозидов мурамоилдипептида. Исходные перацетилированные β-циклогексилалкилглюкозаминиды были получены оксазолиновым методом. Установлено, что β-циклогексилметил- и β-(2-циклогексилэтил)-МДП обладают высоким антиинфекционным протективным эффектом при поражении мышей летальной дозой Staphylococcus aureus.Здійснено синтез β-циклогексилметил- і β-2-циклогексилетил глікозиді в мурамоїлдипептиду. Вихідні перацетильовані (β-циклогексилалкілглюкозамініди були отримані за оксазоліновим методом. Встановлено, що β-циклогексилметил- і β-(2-циклогексилетил)-МДП володіють високим антиінфекційним протективним ефектом при поразці мишей летальною дозою Staphylococcus aureus.The synthesis of β-cyclohexylmethyl- and β-2-cyclohexylethylglycosides of muramyldipeptide has been carried out. The starting peracetates of β-cyclohexylalkylglucosaminides have been obtained by the oxazoline method. It been found that β-cyclohexylmethyl- and β-(2-cyclohexylethyl)-MDP have a high anti-infection protective effect against the lethal dose of Staphylococcus aureus in mice

Toward more flood resilience: is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way forward?

European countries 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 strategies for flood risk management (FRM) - including flood risk prevention (through pro-active spatial planning), flood defense, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation and flood recovery - makes countries more flood resilient. While this thesis is plausible, it should still be empirically scrutinized. This paper aims to do this. Drawing on existing literature we operationalize the notion of "flood resilience" into three capacities: capacity to resist; capacity to absorb and recover; and capacity to transform and adapt. Based on findings from the EU FP7 project STAR-FLOOD, we explore the degree of diversification of FRM strategies and related flood risk governance arrangements at the national level in Belgium, England, France, The Netherlands, Poland and Sweden, as well as these countries' achievement in terms of the three capacities. We found that The Netherlands and to a lesser extent Belgium have a strong "capacity to resist", France a strong "capacity to absorb and recover" and especially England a high capacity to transform and adapt. Having a diverse portfolio of FRM strategies in place may be conducive to high achievements related to the capacities to absorb/recover and to transform and adapt. Hence, we conclude that diversification of FRM strategies contributes to resilience. However, the diversification thesis should be nuanced in the sense that there are different ways to be resilient. First, the three capacities imply different rationales and normative starting points for flood risk governance, the choice between which is inherently political. Second, we found trade-offs between the three capacities, e.g. being resistant seems to lower the possibility to be absorbent. Third, to explain countries' achievements in terms of resilience, the strategies' feasibility in specific physical circumstances and their fit in existing institutional contexts (appropriateness) as well as the establishment of links between strategies, through bridging mechanisms, have also been shown to be crucial factors. The paper provides much needed reflection on the implications of this diagnosis for governments, private parties and citizens who want to increase flood resilience

До питання підготовки музейної експозиції з історії культури первісного суспільства

In Europe, water management is moving from flood defense to a risk management approach, which takes both the probability and the potential consequences of flooding into account. In this report, we will look at Directives and (non-)EU- initiatives in place to deal with flood risk in Europe indirectly and directly. Emphasis will lie on the two Directives most specifically aimed at floods: the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Floods Directive (FD) – how are they related and how they have been or are implemented in the Member States (MSs)? In February 1995, the Netherlands and France took the initiative for a discussion on streamlining the water legislation of the European Union (EU) which resulted in the creation of the WFD in 2000. The WFD provided a new system for the protection and improvement of Europe’s water environment – its rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters and groundwaters. Its main innovation is the requirement that water be managed in an integrated way, with river basin management as leading managing unit. Since flood protection is not explicitly addressed in the WFD, the need to clarify the role of the WFD in flood protection was put on the European agenda as early as 2003, and in 2007, the FD became a fact. The FD is to be implemented in coordination with the WFD, notably by coordinating Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) and River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). Both the WFD and the FD reflect a shift in EU-governance. Instead of the more traditional top-down legalistic approach they emphasise the importance of more bottom up initiatives from the actors who have to implement the Directives. Combined with the expanded freedom and flexibility for national and local governments, with this new approach, the FD is the first Water Directive in EU law that does not offer an equal minimum level of protection for EU citizens. While both Directives are meant to harmonise European legislation, much flexibility on objectives and measures in the FD is left to the MSs, justified by the nature of flooding and the subsidiarity principle. This creates multi-actor, multi-level and multi-sector challenges addressed in report D1.1.2 (Hegger et al. 2013). For instance, the FD sets out general obligations for transboundary cooperation, but at the national level, the scope and distributions of duties, rights and powers of the various organizations involved should be set out in law. Other challenges identified in the literature are concrete issues related to mandatory flood risks assessments, flood risk maps, and Flood Risk Management plans, but also the involvement of the public and stakeholders, the science-policy interface, uncertainties related to climate change predictions and effects, the coordination with the WFD, the lack of safety standards, the lack of possibilities for EU citizens to rely on substantive provisions before the administrative courts and finally, transboundary aspects such as issues of scale, mismatches between national policies, the assessment of transboundary effects and division of costs related to this. In sum, this report has clarified the development, content and implementation of the current European flood risk governance policies, possible synergies between the two most important Directives linked to floods, and identified topics and questions for more in-depth questions relevant for the next work packages, pertaining to, in no particular order, a) the level of implementation and level of ambition as well as the competent authorities in the case study countries; b) the transboundary nature of floods; c) synergies and conflicts between FD and WFD and other issues not mentioned in these Directives; d) the degree of harmonization, for instance when it comes to flood safety standards and e) the subsidiarity principle – is this conform the requirements set out in the FD? Because while current European flood regulation specified in the WFD and FD provides several potential opportunities for improving flood risk governance, it is not self-evident that all of these opportunities will materialise in all MSs

Greening sanitary systems: and end-user perspectives

The central aim of the thesis is to contribute to a transition towards sustainable sanitation and wastewater systems and practices in Western society by developing a social science perspective on sanitation and wastewater management. The empirical core of this study comprises a comparative case study analysis of Dutch, German and Swedish pilot projects in which wastewater management technologies are experimented with in a domestic setting. Desk research, participatory observation and interviews with consumers and providers have been used to analyze these projects in detai