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

Dealing with change and uncertainty within the regulatory frameworks for flood defense infrastructure in selected European countries

Whereas existing literature on the interactions between law, adaptive governance and resilience in the water sector often focuses on quality or supply issues, this paper addresses adaptation in national water laws in relation to increasing flood risks. In particular, this paper analyzes the extent to which legal rules governing flood defense infrastructure in a selection of European countries (Sweden, France, England and the Netherlands) allow for response and adaptation to change and uncertainty. While there is evidence that the legal rules on the development of new infrastructure require that changing conditions be considered, the adaptation of existing infrastructure is a more complicated matter. Liability rules fail to adequately address damages resulting from causes external to the action or inaction of owners and managers, in particular extreme events. A trend towards clearer, and in some cases, increased public powers to ensure the safety of flood defense infrastructure is observed. The paper concludes that legal rules should ensure not only that decisions to build flood defenses are based on holistic and future-oriented assessments, but also that this is reflected in the implementation and operation of these structures

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 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

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

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

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

Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in the Netherlands : Drowning in safety?

The Netherlands has a long tradition of flood risk management, due to its special physical location in the delta of four major river systems. This low-lying country is historically characterised by a ‘fight against water’. The Flood Risk Governance Arrangement of the Netherlands is characterised by a strong focus on reducing flood probability and governmental responsibility. A key characteristic is the statutory right to flood protection from the state. The arrangement of actors, rules, resources and discourses is focused on probability-reduction by administrative organisations. Nevertheless, in recent years a number of changes towards a broader number of Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs) can be observed and different modes of governance are starting to emerge. This report provides insights into the ways in which flood risk governance is changing in the Netherlands, as well as into the extent to which the system enables or constrains societal resilience to flooding. This report is a deliverable of the EU 7th Framework Project STAR-FLOOD (www.starflood.eu). STAR-FLOOD focuses on Flood Risk Governance. The project investigates strategies for dealing with flood risks in 18 vulnerable urban regions in six European countries: England in the UK, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden. The project assesses Flood Risk Governance Arrangements from a combined public administration and legal perspective, with the aim of making European regions more resilient to flood risks. This report is the country report on the Netherlands and forms the empirical core of the STAR-FLOOD research project, in which analyses, explanations and evaluations of The Netherlands, including three case studies, have been performed

Kansen en aandachtspunten voor nature-based solutions in voorlanden

Nature-based solutions (NBS) bieden veel kansen om de waterveiligheid te verhogen en tegelijkertijd natuurwaarden te versterken. In dit artikel worden zowel een aantal ecologische en juridische aspecten besproken als de consequenties van NBS in voorlanden tussen dijk en water, ten behoeve van het overstromingsrisicobeheer