The undebated issue of justice: silent discourses in Dutch flood risk management

Flood risk for all types of flooding is projected to increase based on climate change projections and increases in damage potential. These challenges are likely to aggravate issues of justice in flood risk management (henceforth FRM). Based on a discursive-institutionalist perspective, this paper explores justice in Dutch FRM: how do institutions allocate the responsibilities and costs for FRM for different types of flooding? What are the underlying conceptions of justice? What are the future challenges with regard to climate change? The research revealed that a dichotomy is visible in the Dutch approach to FRM: despite an abundance of rules, regulations and resources spent, flood risk or its management, are only marginally discussed in terms of justice. Despite that the current institutional arrangement has material outcomes that treat particular groups of citizens differently, depending on the type of flooding they are prone to, area they live in (unembanked/embanked) or category of user (e.g. household, industry, farmer). The paper argues that the debate on justice will (re)emerge, since the differences in distributional outcomes are likely to become increasingly uneven as a result of increasing flood risk. The Netherlands should be prepared for this debate by generating the relevant facts and figures. An inclusive debate on the distribution of burdens of FRM could contribute to more effective and legitimate FRM

Insurance against climate change and flooding in the Netherlands: Present, future and comparison with other countries

Climate change is projected to cause severe economic losses, which has the potential to affect the insurance sector and public compensation schemes considerably. This article discusses the role insurance can play in adapting to climate change impacts. The particular focus is on the Dutch insurance sector, in view of the Netherlands being extremely vulnerable to climate change impacts. The usefulness of private insurance as an adaptation instrument to increased flood risks is examined, which is currently unavailable in the Netherlands. It is questioned whether the currently dominant role of the Dutch government in providing damage relief is justified from an economic efficiency perspective. Characteristics of flood insurance arrangements in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France are compared in order to identify possible future directions for arrangements in the Netherlands. It is argued that social welfare improves when insurance companies take responsibility for part of the risks associated with climate change. © 2008 Society for Risk Analysis