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

Bridges over troubled waters: an interdisciplinary framework for evaluating the interconnectedness within fragmented domestic flood risk management systems

Diversification of strategies in Flood Risk Management (FRM) is widely regarded as a necessary step forward in terms of lessening the likelihood and magnitude of flooding, as well as minimizing the exposure of people and property, and in turn the disruption, economic damage, health impacts and other adverse consequences that ensue when floods occur. Thus, diversification is often heralded as an essential condition for enhancing societal resilience to flooding. However, an inevitable consequence of diversifying strategies and practices in FRM is that it can lead to fragmentation within FRM systems, in terms of the distribution of responsibilities between actors and governing rules enacted within different policy domains. This can prove detrimental to the effectiveness of FRM. Building upon the notion of fragmentation developed in legal and governance literature, this paper introduces the concept of ‘bridging mechanisms’, i.e. instruments that remedy fragmentation by enhancing interconnectedness between relevant actors through information transfer, coordination and cooperation. This paper develops a typology of both fragmentation and bridging mechanisms and analyzes their relations, partly drawing upon empirical research conducted within the EU ‘STAR-FLOOD’ project. In turn, this paper outlines a novel interdisciplinary methodological framework for evaluating the degree and quality of the interconnectedness within fragmented domestic FRM systems. A pragmatic, flexible and broadly applicable tool, this framework is both suited for academic purposes, as well as for practically oriented analysis and (re)development of fragmented FRM systems, and potentially other fragmented systems, within the EU and abroad

Dealing with flood damages: will prevention, mitigation and ex-post compensation provide for a resilient triangle?

There is a wealth of literature on the design of ex-post compensation mechanisms for natural disasters. However, more research needs to be done on the manner in which these mechanisms could steer citizens toward adopting individual level preventive and protection measures in the face of flood risks. This paper provides a comparative legal analysis of the financial compensation mechanisms following floods, be it through insurance, public funds or a combination of both, with an empirical focus on Belgium, the Netherlands, England and France. Similarities and differences between the methods in which these compensation mechanisms for flood damages enhance resilience are analyzed. The comparative analysis especially focuses on the link between the recovery strategy on the one hand and prevention and mitigation strategies on the other. There is great potential within the recovery strategy for promoting preventive action, for example in terms of discouraging citizens from living in high-risk areas, or encouraging the uptake of mitigation measures, such as adaptive building. However, this large potential is yet to be realized, in part due to insufficient consideration and promotion of these connections within existing legal frameworks. Recommendations are made about how the linkages between strategies can be further improved. These recommendations relate to, amongst others, the promotion of resilient reinstatement through recovery mechanisms and the removal of legal barriers preventing the establishment of link-inducing measures

The European Union approach to flood risk management and improving societal resilience: lessons from the implementation of the Floods Directive in six European countries

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 the 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. This paper provides 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 impact 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 impact of the Floods Directive on increasing societal resilience has been nationally variable, in part due to its focus on procedural obligations, rather than on more substantive requirements. Analysis shows that despite a focus on transboundary river basin management, in some cases existing traditions of flood risk management, have overridden objectives to harmonize flood risk management. This could be strengthened by requiring more stringent cooperation and providing the competent authorities in International River Basins Districts with more power. Despite some shortcomings in directly impacting flood risk outcomes, the Directive has positively stimulated discussion and flood risk management planning in countries that were perhaps lagging behind

Assessing the legitimacy of flood risk governance arrangements in Europe: insights from intra-country evaluations

Legitimacy has received comparatively less attention than societal resilience in the context of flooding, thus methods for assessing and monitoring the legitimacy of Flood Risk Governance Arrangements (FRGA) are noticeably lacking. This study attempts to address this gap by assessing the legitimacy of FRGAs in six European countries through cross-disciplinary and comparative research methods. On the basis of this assessment, recommendation

Governance strategies for improving flood resilience in the face of climate change

Flooding is the most common of all natural disasters and accounts for large numbers of casualties and a high amount of economic damage worldwide. To be ‘flood resilient’, countries should have sufficient capacity to resist, the capacity to absorb and recover, and the capacity to transform and adapt. Based on international comparative research, we conclude that six key governance strategies will enhance ‘flood resilience’ and will secure the necessary capacities. These strategies pertain to: (i) the diversification of flood risk management approaches; (ii) the alignment of flood risk management approaches to overcome fragmentation; (iii) the involvement, cooperation, and alignment of both public and private actors in flood risk management; (iv) the presence of adequate formal rules that balance legal certainty and flexibility; (v) the assurance of sufficient financial and other types of resources; (vi) the adoption of normative principles that adequately deal with distributional effects. These governance strategies appear to be relevant across different physical and institutional contexts. The findings may also hold valuable lessons for the governance of climate adaptation more generally

Country Report for Belgium

status: publishe

The Law of the River. The Institutional Challenge for Transboundary River Basin Management and Multi-Level Approaches to Water Quantity Management

This research project relates to cooperation between EU Member States with regard to International River Basin Districts (IRBDs), with a special focus on the quantitative aspects of water management. As the waters that run through these districts are not contained within the boundaries of national territories, but cross state borders, they require a solid overarching legal framework. Indeed, actions taken by one Member State in the district, impact the status of the water in another Member State in that same district, potentially jeopardising the compliance of the latter with the relevant European Directives. However, the currently applicable European framework lacks mechanisms to safeguard cooperation between these states. The governance of waters subject to the EU legal framework for water law is multi-levelled to a large degree. The main levels of governance are (a) the international level, governed by the UN Watercourses Convention and the UNECE Water Convention; (b) the sub-regional level, namely the structures formed on the basis of these Conventions for specific rivers, such as the Rhine, (c) the level of the European Union, namely through the Water Framework Directive and its sister and daughter Directives; (d) the national level of the riparian Member States, namely the level wherein the instruments issued at the level of the European Union is being implemented in the national orders, and (e) the sub-national level of the riparian Member States, namely the local authorities for sub-basins and sub-sub-basins entering into consultations with their cross-border counterparts. Each of these five levels needs to be taken into account. Moreover, there is an interaction between each of these levels. The interaction most relevant for this research is the interaction, which is taking place between level (a) and level (c), with level (b), (d) and (e) representing testing cases through the concept of International River Basin Districts.status: publishe

Critical Success Factors in Transboundary Water Management: a US-EU Comparison

status: publishe

Poster presentation: Cooperation in Flood Risk Management between EU Member States in International River Basin Districts

status: publishe