Partnership Funding in flood risk management: multi-level stakeholder engagement - a question of roles and power

The paper examines the new flood risk policy discussion in England and Wales. The summer floods in England in 2007 caused large damages to the environment, economy and humanity. Following this key flood event, the Government has started to redefine the national flood and coastal risk management policy in England and Wales. The key issue in the new policy agenda is to encourage the responsibilities of local authorities and reduce the central role of flood risk management. This decentralisation in flood risk management has a series of consequences in the development of new governance structures. The main reason for this shift from central to local level is the belief that local authorities deal with public administration tasks in a more efficient way. Nevertheless, the main problem is the gap between the delegated tasks and the lack of transfer of resources, especially the issue concerning funding is still unclear and unresolved. This constraint will go with fiscal and administration cuts. The consequences will be (1) ‘hollowing out’ of the Government with the downscaling of the responsibility towards local actors and (2) without proportional transfer of resources to local authorities they will not be able to deal with new tasks. Therefore, in practice there are many limitations, barriers and concerns with the new policy direction

Partnership approaches in flood risk management: lessons from the Eastern Alps

In the past decades flood risk management has taken a paradigm shift away from a structural, securitybased approach towards more an integrated, risk-based approach. While the ‘traditional’ approach was informed by afirm belief in controlling rivers via engineering solutions, flood risk management today increasingly acknowledgesthe importance of providing ‘more space for the rivers’. The new policy agenda has been implemented to enhance the development of catchment-wide management plans in flood risk management and at the same time to reduce the controlling role of central national governments. The aim of the paper is to examine the new role of these local authorities and organisations in flood risk management as well as how the nature of partnerships are established and operate, focusing especially on the main barriers and challenges. The current goal of this partnership approach lies with the conservation of regionally important retention areas for protective measures on an inter-local level. An important issue is that of compensation measures between upstream and downstream communities, which at present is causing many conflicts. We conclude that although a catchment-wide management approach may be seen as an ‘optimal’ solution for flood risk management. However, in practice there are many limitations and barriers in establishing these collaborations and making them effective

Promoting adaptive flood risk management: the role and potential of flood recovery mechanisms

There is a high potential for recovery mechanisms to be used to incentivise the uptake of flood mitigation and loss reduction measures, undertake adaptation and promote community resilience. Indeed, creating a resilient response to flooding requires flood risk management approaches to be aligned and it needs to be ensured that recovery mechanisms to not provide disincentives for individuals and business to take proactive action to reduce risk. However, the degree to which it is desirable and effective for insurers and governments providing compensation to promote resilience and risk reduction depends upon how the cover or compensation is organised and the premiums which are charged. A review of international flood recovery mechanisms has been undertaken to identify firstly the types of schemes that exist and their characteristics. Analysis of existing instruments highlights that there are various potential approaches to encourage or require the uptake of flood mitigation and also discourage the construction of new development in high flood risk. However despite the presence of these instruments, those organising recovery mechanisms could be doing much more to incentivise increased resilience