presentation keynote speech: governance for resilient cities: some insights from the starflood...
TRANSCRIPT
Governance for resilient cities: some insights from the STAR-FLOOD project
Dr. Ann Crabbé, University of Antwerp
Prof. Dr. Corinne Larrue, University Paris Est Crétail
Need for governance research
Evolution of climate change research over time from 1980s onwards
in European countries (Biesbroek et al. 2010)
About STAR-FLOOD
Per country: national study + 3 case studies
Nederlands France England Belgium Sweden Poland
Nijmegen Nevers London Antwerpen Gothenburg Slubice
Zuidplas-
polder
Le Havre Hull Geraards-
bergen
Kristianstad Poznan
Rijnmond Nice Leeds Lessen Karlstad Wroclaw
We are facing a diversification of strategies
for flood risk strategies in practice,
strenghtened by other evolutions, new
discourses etc.
Trends, discourses… supporting this evolution
⇒ reduced reliance on engineered solutions (Netherlands,
UK).
⇒Reduced budget for defense policy (all countries)
⇒ Impact of Flood Directive: incentive for implementing
comprehensive/integrated local strategies (all countries)
⇒ Important shock events (PL)
⇒Perspective of climate changes (increasing adaptive
capacity (Sweden)
Illustration for France
The decentralisation process has visible consequences
with regard to diversification of strategies:
• Transfer of infrastructure management from State to
local authorities
• Empowerment of the intercommunal organisations, cf.
presentation Fournier/Gralepois
• Introduction of specific tools (PCS/DICRIM) enforces
municipalities’ role in flood preparation
• Incentive through a global framework (PAPI)
Illustration for Flanders (Belgium)
The discourse on multi-level water safety broadens the
scope from flood protection towards prevention and
preparedness
• MLWS: a discourse used by water managers to appeal
to spatial planning (prevention) and other actors (civil
protection, fire brigades, insurance sector)
• Cost-benefit analysis to identify the most cost-efficient
approach for each watercourse: collective protection
versus other measures
Generic policies, developed by central governments,
have their limits:
• Because of decreasing resources (financial,
personnel…) stimulating decentralisation of
responsibilities
• Because ‘one solution that fits all’ often does not
work, particularly in countries as Belgium with its
historic problems with spatial planning
We see a call for more tailor made solutions at the local
scale:
• Need for coordination platforms, bringing together the
big number of governmental authorities (in Belgium)
and other actors involved, eg. CIW, GTI, basin
committees, river contracts etc.
• Particular need for experimenting with innovative
instruments that help to resolve spatial planning
problems
Bottlenecks
• Still strong coordination ambitions from the central
governments – preference for ‘uniform’ policy
implementation
• Tricky combination of flood risk management and
economic development ambitions of local
governments
• Lack of knowledge, human resources, financial
means and time with local governments to coordinate
experiments
Public authorities will no longer be the only
responsible for flood risk management:
responsibilities are shifting more and more
towards private actors.
Traditionally flood management is a highly technocratic
issue, almost exclusively carried out by government
authorities.
Recent trend towards distribution of responsibilities
between govennmental and non-governmental actors.
Illustrations from Belgium
• Private insurance companies have an important role
in flood recovery: flood risks are part of the fire
insurance of house owners/tenants
• The duty to inform potential buyers of property in flood
prone areas
• The multi-level water safety discourse introduces the
idea that the government will cease to provide
collective protection in all cases; indidivuals will need
to take action themselves
Illustrations from France
• The willingness/discourses to develop “risk
consciousness” within population
• The duty to inform potential buyers of property in flood
prone areas
• Local inhabitants involvement in case of flood
(réserve communale de sauvegarde)
• Public participation as a way to responsabilise target
groups
Some concluding remarks
• Flood Risk management is more and more complex:
do not rely anymore only on defence and preparation
• Multiple actors, multiple instruments, multiple
strategies => more coordination needed
• Climate change perspective : still a long term
perspective, not yet really integrated in local flood risk
management