Sticks and carrots for reducing property-level risks from floods: an EU-US comparative perspective

In discussing legal and policy frameworks for flood risk management, the attention is often put on increasing resilience in public spaces. In terms of private properties, discussions are geared toward enhancing the adaptive capacity of future developments. This paper focuses on the instruments associated with resilience of existing privately owned residential buildings mainly from the perspective of post-flood policies and compensation regimes. The paper scrutinizes the relevant legal and policy landscapes in the United States, the European Union and two Member States – the UK and the Netherlands. The goal is to provide mutual lessons learned between the EU, its Member States, and the US and to set forth generally applicable recommendations for improving post-flood policies for existing buildings

The rationales of resilience in English and Dutch flood risk policies

We compared the governance of flood risk in England and the Netherlands, focusing on the general policies, instruments used and underlying principles. Both physical and political environments are important in explaining how countries evolved towards very different rationales of resilience. Answering questions as ‘who decides’, ‘who should act’ and ‘who is responsible and liable for flood damage’ systematically, results in a quite fundamental difference in what resilience means, and how this affects the governance regime. In the Netherlands, there is nationwide collective regime with a technocracy based on the merit of water expertise, legitimated by a social contract of government being responsible and the general public accepting and supporting this. In England there also is a technocracy, but this is part of a general-political and economic-rational decision-making process, with responsibilities spread over state, insurance companies, individuals and communities. The rationales are connected to specific conceptions of the public interest, leading to specific governance principles. In both countries, flood risk strategies are discussed in the light of climate change effects, but resilience strategies show more persistence, although combined with gradual adaptation of practices on lower scales, than great transformations

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

A method for the deliberate and deliberative selection of policy instrument mixes for climate change adaptation

Policy instruments can help put climate adaptation plans into action. Here, we propose a method for the systematic assessment and selection of policy instruments for stimulating adaptation action. The multi-disciplinary set of six assessment criteria is derived from economics, policy, and legal studies. These criteria are specified for the purpose of climate adaptation by taking into account four challenges to the governance of climate adaptation: uncertainty, spatial diversity, controversy, and social complexity. The six criteria and four challenges are integrated into a step-wise method that enables the selection of instruments starting from a generic assessment and ending with a specific assessment of policy instrument mixes for the stimulation of a specific adaptation measure. We then apply the method to three examples of adaptation measures. The method’s merits lie in enabling deliberate choices through a holistic and comprehensive set of adaptation specific criteria, as well as deliberative choices by offering a stepwise method that structures an informed dialog on instrument selection. Although the method was created and applied by scientific experts, policy-makers can also use the method

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

1 of 25 Journal of Environmental Law Advance Access published March 11

Abstract This article presents a comparative perspective of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The investigated Member States are the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Romania, Italy, Spain and Portugal. The implementation of the WFD in these Member States was researched with the help of legal experts who completed questionnaires or were interviewed and-limited to five Member States-through interviews with civil servants who were involved with the implemention of the WFD. This research demonstrates that the WFD leaves so much room for discretion that the Member States adopt different approaches concerning the implementation of fundamental parts of the Directive. Although the need for flexibility due to the differences in circumstances is recognised, the new governance approach of the WFD demonstrates a risk that unambitious national practices will lea

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

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

Governance Conditions for Improving Quality Drinking Water Resources: the Need for Enhancing Connectivity

Realising the water quality objectives of the European Water Framework Directive have appeared to stagnate over the last decade all across Europe because of their highly complex nature. In the literature, interactive governance approaches tend to be regarded as the best way of dealing with complex water issues, but so far little empirical evidence has been reported on this perspective in regard to water quality issues. In this paper we have analysed how conditions of governance contribute to the realisation of water quality objectives at different types of drinking water resources in the Netherlands. The analysis demonstrates the importance of addressing different hydrological scales, institutional levels and sectors and thus enhance connectivity in order to improve water quality. The two other important conditions of governance approaches for water quality improvement which were identified are the use of joint fact-finding to gain a shared perception of risks, and the use of explicit decision-making and close monitoring of outcomes (re. water quality improvement), both of which contribute to this enhanced connectivity