synthesis of 2010 int'l flood risk management discussions · this report provides a synthesis...

0

Table of Contents

Background, About this Report, and Acknowledgements 1

Session Syntheses

Welcome and Overview of Flood Risk 2

Major Drivers Affecting Flood Hazards: Climate Change 3

Major Drivers Affecting Flood Hazards: Land Use Change Affecting Risk 6

Introducing Risk Assessment: Defining Standards, Selecting Measures, Working with Nature 10

Approaches to Addressing Flood Hazards: Physical Infrastructure 11

Other Diverse Approaches and Communicating Risk: Break‐Out Sessions

Preparedness and Emergency Response 14

Providing Areas for Flooding / Benefits of Natural Floodplains 15

Enabling Public Participation 16

Terminology 17

National and International Exercises 18

Visualization 19

Plenary Discussions on Break‐Out Sessions 20

Moving Forward: Addressing Difficult Decisions 24

National Governance 27

A National Vision and Plan 31

Legislative Approaches and Transnational Cooperation 33

Insuring, Underwriting, and Sharing the Risks 34

Bringing it All Together: Making Further Progress 36

Summary and Close 39

Appendices:

1. Organizations and Countries Contributing and Participating 40 2. Steering Committee, Facilitators, Synthesizers, and Logistical Support 41 3. International Approaches to Flood Risk Management: Governance Comparisons 42

1

International Flood Risk Management Approaches: From Theory to Practice Governmental Policy‐Oriented Discussions

November 30 and December 1, 2010 Background Approximately 100 people from nearly 20 countries participated in international policy‐oriented discussions on flood risk management approaches November 30 and December 1 in Washington, D.C. The two days of discussion, hosted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and international steering committee partners, focused on flood risk management approaches internationally and emphasized the movement from theory to practice. Most participants were government officials responsible for developing policy and practicing flood risk management. Participants shared their progress in developing and implementing flood risk management approaches, learned what others have accomplished internationally and identified the strengths of those achievements, and highlighted areas where partnerships can provide mutual advantage. Participants explored numerous subjects:

how countries are dealing with major drivers affecting flood hazards, such as climate change and land use

approaches being taken to define, measure and address flood risks within social and environmental contexts

risk‐informed approaches for physical infrastructure in light of changing hazards, maintenance concerns, and fiscal constraints

other diverse approaches such as providing areas for flooding and utilizing the natural benefits of floodplains, enhancing communication, and improving preparedness

national governance, legislative approaches and transnational cooperation insurance, underwriting and sharing risks

Discussions concluded with consideration of common challenges, what is transferable between countries, and issues that would benefit from being addressed through partnerships. About this Report This report provides a synthesis of the major issues, approaches, insights and observations, and challenges and remaining questions discussed during the various sessions held during the two‐day event. It also contains a synthesis of submitted papers describing governance approaches in nine countries. This report deliberately focuses on the issues raised rather than who raised them; it is intended to complement the papers and presentations prepared by individuals and made available to participants. Those additional materials are available on the event website at http://www.nfrmp.us/IFRMA (click on “at a glance” to access each day’s detailed program with embedded links.) Acknowledgements This report would not have been possible without the dedicated efforts of synthesizers from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, expert facilitation and logistical support, and guidance from members of the International Steering Committee from the event’s conception to close. The Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided championship, encouragement, and funding for planning, hosting, and reporting on the event.

2

Welcome and Overview of Flood Risk Major Issues

Discussions provide opportunity to share progress and foster more Flood Risk Defined

o Assessing flood risk: involves the likelihood of a flood hazard occurring, the vulnerability of actions implemented to mitigate flood effects, and the consequences that result from that mitigated flood event

o Understanding flood risk: need to identify, assess, and measure hazards, vulnerabilities and consequences

o Managing flood risk: must coordinate policies and actions with those who can affect the hazards, vulnerabilities, and consequences; must be integrated and synchronized

Approaches

Transitioning from “flood protection” to “flood risk management” around the world U.S. learning from Hurricane Katrina, shifting to risk‐informed, system‐wide approaches

o Modernizing Principles and Guidelines for water resources studies o Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force to better align federal programs,

provide clear messages and transparent decision‐making o National Flood Insurance Program Reform to ensure program efficiently and effectively

meets needs of public o National Committee on Levee Safety encompassing federal, state, regional/local and private

participants provided recommendations on levee safety as first step in national infrastructure investment, identified need for broader risk management approach

o Regional Flood Risk Management Team in upper Mississippi coordinates federal, tribal, state, local governments’ flood risk management initiatives

o State‐level Silver Jackets program forges federal‐state partnerships focused on flood mitigation; successes include non‐structural solution instead of structural repair

Insights and Observations

Flood risk management fits within Integrated Water Resources Management: must consider environmental sustainability, unite stakeholders in planning and decision making, take account of evolving social demands

Challenges and Remaining Questions Each participant to bring experiences to the table Examine integration of technical, policy and strategy and how that translates into successful action;

discuss practical approaches; seek partnerships providing mutual advantage Work towards a better informed, better prepared, more sustainable world

3

Major Drivers Affecting Flood Hazards: Climate Change Major Issues Overall Issues

Increasing concentration of the population in weather‐sensitive areas will increase society’s vulnerability to weather and water conditions

Role of a scientist and engineer is incomplete without a connection to the decision maker and it is necessary that local and regional governments are provided with climate information to incorporate into their planning processes

Only the outreach and effectiveness of forecasts and early warnings based on scientific monitoring of meteorological and hydrological hazards can determine the success of any disaster preparedness planning.

Overall, need better understanding of causes and effects, integration of adaptation and mitigation plans, improvement of early warning systems, and adaptable protection plans for climate change.

Climate and Hydrologic Modeling Issues

Accurate forecast of future temperature and sea level are necessary for assessing future flood risk; however, predicting future climate is more difficult than understanding past

Credible projections of future evolution of globally averaged temperature and global mean sea level will require, among other understandings, improved knowledge of carbon‐cycle feedbacks and ice flow processes

Regional variations in sea level are dependent on variability in atmospheric and oceanic dynamics due to processes such as El Niño/La Niña‐Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, etc., which are not possible to forecast in a reliable manner

Radiative effects of aerosols may play an extremely strong role in the future evolution of globally averaged temperature and global mean sea level

The basic hydrological processes leading to rainfall‐runoff transformation, particularly in case of extreme events, are not yet properly described or implemented in models taking quantitative and qualitative advantage of available remote sensing capabilities

Approaches European Union The European Directive, DIRECTIVE 2007/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2007, establishes a legal framework with the overall goal to reduce adverse consequences of flooding to human health, environment, cultural heritage, and economic activity. The directive requires the following by the member states:

flood risk assessment to identify significant flood risk areas by 2011 flood hazard and flood risk map production by 2013 flood risk management plan must for all of the areas identified as being at a significant risk of

flooding by 2015 Sweden From 2005 to 2007, the Swedish government appointed a Commission to assess the national, regional, and local impacts of global climate change. Global climate change models were downscaled to regional and local conditions in Sweden to achieve the following goals:

Map vulnerable areas Estimate damages Propose actions to mitigate vulnerabilities

4

Estimate costs of adaption and preventative measures Sweden has established the following to aid in flood mitigation

River coordination groups to involve stakeholders in watershed areas of rivers and increase level of knowledge of risks

Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) o Provides governmental subsidies to municipalities that have taken preventative measures o Provide general stability and flood inundation mapping to support decision making o Collaborates with other agencies through a climate change adaptation portal

www.klimatanpassning.se Italy

European Union Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC o Establishes community framework for protection and restoration of inland surface waters,

transitional waters, coastal waters, groundwater and related habitats Adaptation options have to be mainstreamed in key European Union related policies Integrate floods and droughts into one framework, one management plan

United States The Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force was initiated in 2009, including 20 Federal Agencies. Other collaborative efforts to provide local and regional governments with climate information to implement in planning processes include but are not limited to

Climate Service Line Office being developed by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Integrated Water Resources Science and Services (IWRSS) NOAA’s Storm Surge Roadmap


Climate change adaptation aspects and understanding of impacts viewed as equally important Climate change impacts affect all aspects of society, not just the scientific community Worthwhile to investigate uncertainty in climate change predictions, but at the same time, changes

are already occurring so we must begin to adapt and adjust We must take note of lessons learned from previous disasters and implement into the existing flood

risk management cycle Other factors must be considered in the flood risk, such as erosion and sea level rise

o In Sweden, erosion comes into flood risk maps and attempts are being made to incorporate all these problems into the risk mapping

o Every location will have a risk management action program in response to the risk maps Public involvement is an important component in flood risk management

o Regarding the European directive, public involvement is a requirement starting from the 2000 directive. Present results of planning are available and the discussion will be open to the public. This will continue for flood hazard maps and drought maps.

Plans must be flexible, but account for international rivers o The European directive is flexible – so national standards can be used within each country. o However, standards from the directive must be used for basins within more than one

country and countries must use the same data sets and produce coherent maps Example for initiating launches in flood risk management that involve many stakeholders

o In Sweden, five members in the government commission began the work. Then, wide variety of participants, including society members and stakeholders became involved. As it develops the direct effects can be determined and used as a guide.

5

Terminology: Coastal Areas include a geopoliticial unit of a county that borders the oceanic area and the Great Lakes. The United States did not do this for Alaska.

Challenges and Remaining Questions

We are unable to make accurate long‐term predictions as well as we’d like, including the ability to predict where storms will occur as a result of climate change.

Regarding the effects of climate change on coastal storms and sea level rise, we need o Analysis of long‐term climate data records o Predictions/projections of climate extremes and research on trends of extremes o Accurate sea level measurements and predictions

Improvements are needed for incorporating multiple problems, such as erosion and sea‐level rise, into risk mapping

How do we approach climate change from an insurance standpoint? We need to better understand perceptions and socio‐economic costs to promote risk‐wise behavior

and development Climate change is a global issue and we need to work together through partnerships to integrate

climate information and planning tools

6

Major Drivers Affecting Flood Hazards: Land Use Change

Major Issues Paradigm shift from “providing safe level of protection” to “reducing risk to acceptable levels”; shift

requires acceptance that absolute safety is impossible Preventative flood risk management is most cost‐effective and can quickly show positive results Risk reduction can occur through spatial planning, such as in Slovenia

o Integration of flood risk management into spatial planning o Integration of flood maps into spatial plans

European Union Flood Risk Directive is changing legislation; proposed legislation for sharing responsibility for flood risk has provoked a variety of positive and negative reactions

How to best utilize lands reserved for flood storage, especially when areas are heavily populated, used sparingly; need detailed evacuation plans and public understanding

Recognition of ecosystem benefits of having flood storage areas occasionally inundated o How to couple these into ecological issues? o Would be win‐win for the population to link these areas up with nature reserves to obtain

ecological benefits from flooding Use of flood storage areas can have economic disruptions; in China there is no desire to use these

methods unless absolutely necessary o Compensation for those flooded is still being investigated o Everyone living in flood detention areas understands the situation and is prepared to be

flooded if necessary United States is trying to move toward a nonstructural, land‐use‐focused approach

o Traditional focus on structural solutions had mixed success o Involves adjusting human behavior rather than trying to adjust nature o Requires partnership approaches with state and local governments because land use

planning /development and building codes mostly a local decision Current policies in the United States are increasing risk

o At national level, don’t account for future development or future conditions in analyses o Don’t look at development holistically, but rather consider one building at a time o Don’t look at the consequences of cumulative development within a watershed o Communities that do less to prevent flooding in their areas get more federal money after a

flood, so we are incentivizing poor behavior o Few limits on critical facilities in flood risk areas, such as hospitals, water treatment plants,

fire and police stations, which should be protected to higher standard o Have lost much of natural and beneficial functions of our floodplains; no national standards

for protection of those functions For new development we should be considering resiliency during catastrophic events

Approaches Slovenia

Putting efforts towards incorporating preventative flood risk management into all stages of flood risk management

Primary goal to encourage at the local and state levels avoidance of risky new development o In areas with flood hazards with higher levels of development the state makes and

implements flood risk management plans for areas of high flood risk o To add on to existing cities must have in mind plans to reduce existing flood risk, not just

avoid flood risk in new area o Try to avoid new build‐up in risky areas

7

o When new urbanization in hazardous areas is unavoidable, the goal is to keep the developed area as small as possible

Regulations for flood risk management procedures, mapping methodology and aggregation of flood maps in Water cadastre, and integration of flood maps into spatial plans on all levels

o Also standards for construction and equipment of buildings in flood areas o Can apply at national, regional, or local level o Avoid development in the floodplain as much as possible

Spatial planning based on hazard maps o If hazard maps are respected, risk management really not necessary; otherwise, risk

management must be addressed China

Flood retention areas can be used in flood events to minimize downstream impacts o 83 flood storage and retention areas along major rivers; gates in the levees opened to allow

inundation; areas used sparingly o Building adaptations, such as multi‐story buildings to allow people to avoid the maximum

flood crest, are necessary for safety o Detailed evacuation plans exist to enable people to get out before an event o Occupation of these areas technically illegal, but people needed the area for farming so the

areas are now heavily populated Have done a great deal to map and understand what would happen in a flood event, allowing for

very sophisticated operation of the system National issue is closely coordinated between national, regional, and local areas and decision‐

makers The Three Gorges dam is another flood risk management strategy

o Can control the 100‐year flood event o Also produces power o Goal is to make maximum use of the land for multiple purposes

The Chinese recognized the beauty of the United Kingdom’s Foresight Study and teamed up to do a study of the Taihu Basin

o Evaluated implications of careful land use planning in the future, including consideration of flood risk during the development planning process to keep people out of harm’s way

o Results indicate that significant economic savings can be achieved from careful land use planning

United States First half of 20th century – focus on structural solutions only, to move water away from development as

quickly as possible Latter half of 20th century – began to address land use as means of reducing damage

o Currently, we have few restrictions on building in high‐risk areas o Most development permits are issued by local governments, but there may be some constraints

in what can be approved o A particularly successful approach has been acquisition/relocation and elevation programs; have

moved more than 35,000 structures from the flood hazard area and provided open space for natural functions of the floodplain

National Flood Insurance Program is a voluntary program for communities to obtain flood insurance, but the communities must follow certain land use requirements in order to be eligible

o About half of communities use the minimum acceptable national standards, while the other half use more stringent standards

Two elements of land use approaches

8

o Existing development Dealing with existing structures more difficult than dealing with new development Mitigation should not pass the risk on to another property, elevation and flood‐proofing

structures Consider nonstructural approaches to remove structures from harm’s way Structural measures are still being used, but not to the same degree as in the past When using structural measures, need to mitigate for impacts to other areas

o New development Need to help communities be resilient during catastrophic events (beyond 1%) Must plan beyond 1% event, stop incentivizing poor floodplain behavior If we’re going to use insurance mechanism, it should be actuarial so that those building

and living in risky areas are paying for it Insights and Observations

All politics are local o In the United States, when a large groups of citizens is at risk the local politicians don’t want

their constituents to have to pay, they want to pass the costs on to the taxpayers o In China, politics are similar to those in the United States, where the local representatives will

try to stand up for their constituents o A different mindset exists in the Slovenia, and politics are not problematic

Desire to compensate people living in areas that are used as flood detention areas when they are flooded being driven by

o China’s rising standards of living, so people less willing to let their areas be flooded o Evaluating various costs, implications, and trade‐offs of relocations and rebuilding o Consideration of building more dams and using them to produce hydropower, with revenue

generated from the hydropower production used to compensate people in the flood detention areas

Ecological restoration as a major aspect of flood risk management still a growing area in China. There are some trade‐offs between human needs and ecological needs; China is very active in trying to establish ecological standards

Nature of public discussion with respect to occupying risky areas o Most public discussions are on the planning aspects in Slovenia and focused locally

Memory of individuals about floods is very short, so on a national basis we need some standards of acceptable risk

This is a good starting point to reach consensus in society about acceptable risk o In the United States there are two different groups involved

Riverine floods tend to impact low‐income, minority areas where people not able to cope with the challenges

Coastal areas are high‐value property with wealthy residents who can withstand the impacts of floods, and can also exert political influence

There is concern that social justice issues may exist because those impacted by riverine flooding will not be able to raise their issues

o In the United States, by and large there is not public discussion; discussion is primarily between the city council, the developer, and the developer’s attorney and engineer, because no one considers the adverse consequences of the development on existing properties, and the primary concern is the potential increase in revenue

Several issues raised by China’s Foresight Study in the Taihu Basin o There has been massive growth in China, coupled with a lack of central planning, so there

are socioeconomic issues to be considered when addressing flood risk o Climate change is also of significant concern

9

o The effects of climate change and socioeconomic change appear to be multiplicative, resulting in much larger increases in flood risk

o Taihu Basin is fairly flat so stormwater flooding is a problem In the United States we have neglected issue of storm water (pluvial) flooding,

which other countries have been thinking about, but we are seeing that to be a problem here now

Need to consider where the rivers are, but also where the pluvial component will be, and where the pluvial component should be directed to

Challenges and Remaining Questions Acceptance of the fact that absolute safety is not possible

o This implies that individuals must accept some amount of risk o Need to foster personal and local responsibility for flood risk

In the United States, need to move away from the concept of the 100‐year flood only Need to stop providing incentives for development in high‐risk areas Reducing the frequency of flooding is only half of flood risk management, must also manage new

development in order to manage the consequences of flooding Need political will to do the right thing, and it doesn’t always exist

o This is a problem in many areas of the world o United Kingdom government is trying to decide who should pay for flood defenses

Need political discipline and will to see through policy options and make sure the right policies are in place and implemented

Need leadership, as technical experts can provide the science but need leadership to provide the implementation

Need to seize the moment when an events happen as an opportunity for change; political half‐life of a major disaster is about 3 years

Political will does not happen by itself, it must be pushed o In the United States membership organizations have been successful in developing and

fostering professional relationships that assist in fostering change in the political will; however, need to spread the message to Congress and Administration

o In Slovenia in the last 15 years flooding not really considered a problem because it’s a natural phenomena and ecological people were in charge, but the European Directive has changed this because addressing flood risk management issues is required regardless of political will

10

Introducing Risk Assessment: Defining Standards, Selecting Measures, Working with Nature

Major Issues

In recent years, large events like Hurricane Katrina have impacted flood risk management policies. Some of the current flood safety policies are not enough and nations need to develop new safety standard for their flood defenses.

Similar to the shift in the standard for flood defenses, there has been a shift for a more holistic view of flood risk management where nations are focusing on:

o Reducing risk o Eliminating risk o Sharing risk – insuring properties impacted o Managing risk o Accepting risk

All nations are challenged by this new focus. There has been a shift recently to move from just concentrating on probability to understanding

both probability and consequences in a more holistic approach. In some nations, there is significant population behind some of the flood defenses and therefore, the consequences (populations impacted, impacts to the economy and building stock, etc.) of a failure or significant flood event are as important as understanding the probability.

Approaches

Clear arrangement should be made on the roles and responsibilities across all levels of government. In the Netherlands, there is a four layered approach with local (waterboards), regional (provinces), national (Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment), and European Commission.

Like the United Kingdom, nations are looking to develop multiple strategies and adaption to manage flood risk. Legislation and policies drive certain behaviors but, they are also looking back to nature to help manage flood risk.

o Looking at setting back defense to start to use marsh land as a barrier; o Looking at sites for new barrier defenses; and o Restoring floodplain in upstream areas to minimize potential damages downstream.

In the Netherlands, every six years they give a state of the levee systems report to Parliament. Based on inspections they perform an analysis of what should be upgraded and prioritize the efforts.


Many nations are challenged with the need to convey risk, and tell their leadership what is at risk from flooding and what is protected by flood defenses. To add to that challenge, there is a need to convey this type of information to the general public so they feel well aware and understand the risk that they face. The general public needs to understand that there is no 100% guarantee of protection and governmental entities need to continue to work on raising the awareness.

Are there lessons learned on how you communicate the flood risk assessments with public? In general, it is difficult to convey science and technical pieces to the public. Risk assessments bridge that gap since it relates the science to the building infrastructure. One lesson learned from the Netherlands is to include people early and often in the conversation about their flood risk.

With the topic of trying to make innovative changes in policy while doing the best for constituents, are there any insights on how to build political consensus? In general, government needs to take advantage of disaster events. If an event were to occur, need to leverage the opportunity to remind the public about flood risk management and seize the moment you have. It is also vital to use a range of partners to get change to take place at local level that may impact national level policy. Need to use the media as effectively as you can. This will impact political will.

11

Approaches to Addressing Flood Hazards: Physical Infrastructure Major Issues

Can’t fix everything everywhere, so need to assess risk on a proportional basis, using low tech where appropriate, targeting more sophisticated technical approaches where they are most needed, and using electronic devises strategically to look at performance over time

Practical experience is being gained with various embedded and experimental sensors, some coupled with deliberate failures to see what sensors work best, with optical fiber embedded longitudinally in levees to look at displacement

Need to consider voluntary versus involuntary assumption of risks in addressing individual and societal risks, avoid imposing individual risks for benefit of society;

Acceptance of risk‐neutral versus risk‐adverse approaches an important policy decision Need the best mix of protection and resilience to overtopping (one example approach in Japan is the

super levee for highly populated areas) Need a consistent methodology, including appropriate review, to create trust and a common

approach for a common metric such as flood risk Approaches The Netherlands

Reliability analysis (FLORIS) performed for the levee system considering all principal failure modes and correlations. Identified three categories (dikes, dunes and hydraulic structures) with a total of nine failure mechanisms with fifty variables per mechanism to define the stochastic or deterministic parameters.

o Result: probabilistic risk assessment for all levee systems. Added analysis to individual risk, societal risk and economic risk; was useful for identifying weak sections and prioritizing dike and dune improvements.

o Six‐year safety assessment shows sections that did not meet country’s legal standard. If section does not comply, has to be reinforced and demonstrate reduction in societal risk, individual risk and economic risk. For risk communication, maps show failure probability by section with those not meeting the legal standard colored red.

o Findings identified seepage piping as the main failure mechanism. Failure mechanism underestimated, now developing design guidelines and risk model for this mechanism.

United States

Tolerability of Risk Framework (TOR): U.S. National Levee Committee recommended use of TOR, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is looking at how to incorporate it.

o U.S. is a wealthy country and can tolerate a lot of risk. However, post‐Katrina, life safety improvements and risk‐justified priorities being incorporated into decisions. TOR gives context in terms of what is achievable, practicable and requiring urgency of action.

o Routine levee safety programs so society is confident that the levees are being controlled o Non routine levee safety activities: Levee decisions are about many uncertainties where

data uncertainty is very large. o Why TOR? In the end want to understand shared responsibility; identify greatest risk; shared

responsibilities and priorities; make better decision making through improved risk communication.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation utilizes risk based practices in dam safety, building dams o Quantify the annualized loss of life; loss of life primary, economic, environmental,

agricultural consequences all secondary

12

o Consider static loading based on operation surface water elevation, seismic probabilistic assessment for ground motion and liquefaction, probable maximum flood, minimal incorporation of climate change at this time

o Structural response requires expert elicitation o For estimating loss of life consequences, have evidence from a semi empirical model based

on 50‐60 dam failures. o Basis for decision‐making is the risk estimate and its justifying rationale

Decisions are a collaborative process between operators and owners Project beneficiaries have to be involved. Look at the best decision from all points of

view. High consequences is not enough, it needs to be assessed with how likely they

would occur with loss of life to prioritize. Risk reduction options range from annualized losses; to structural; to low flow

restrictions; to how we store water for operations; and how to decommission.

United Kingdom Fragility curves express probability of failure or breach of levees conditional on the degree of loading

they experience. Taken up in the UK when systems analysis introduced embodying source‐pathway receptor concepts to complement overtopping assessments.

Developing a fragility curve: o Identify all failure modes using the international levee handbook. Failure modes are unified

in this and recast in reliability format (i.e., strength and loading). o Prepare fault trees that show logical sequence. Two major failure modes in example:

geotechnical and erosion. Fragility curves can be used by

o Engineers and researchers for flood risk systems modeling o Operational flood risk management using tool for systems analysis of their localized asset

management. The fragility curves show how much risk is embedded in the operational system.

Japan

Preciseness of risk assessment is less important than prioritization. We try to make more of best practice.

Expand and categorize measures used to inventory: measures led by new science and technology, coordination to enhance efficiency, multiple purposes of small‐scale structures, resiliency enhancement, risk‐reduction‐conscious maintenance strategy

Prepare and improve risk assessment methods; consider whether expanded inventory increases chance of making less‐reliable decisions because not all aspects will be technically verified

Build frameworks for optimization and prioritization; what direction should be given priority, expansion of protection range or enhanced resiliency?


Approaches to addressing flood hazards can only be partially standardized depending on factors associated with the landscape, culture, risk tolerance and resources.

o Landscape diversity – there will be technical limitations on what and where to gather information and how to make an assessment. If a nation’s landscape is similar, then methods can be more easily standardized.

o Culture diversity – affects how tolerant we are to different kinds of risk and our willingness to accept flood hazards. Some cultures may be more risk averse than others to loss of life.

13

o Resources diversity – may raise environmental justice issues, so we need monitoring tools to prioritize resources for all communities in the decision making process. Focus is on monitoring existing conditions continuously for efficient use of resources.

A community of international practices creates an opportunity to expand strategies and national policies by recognizing the diversity of approaches driven by one or a combination of the above three factors.

Challenges and Remaining Questions There is a challenge for flood risk assessment and management due to the scale of the problem. The

challenge under limited resources is how to monitor levees so their deterioration or changed condition is known. Then priorities can be made.

In the past we have assumed the driving risk factor was overtopping, yet today we are finding out that it may be seepage that historically we assumed was static after the levee was built. The issue of geo‐tech design standards for seepage and how it is incorporated into the risk assessment should be investigated.

14

Breakout Session: Preparedness and Emergency Response Major Issues Posed by Introductory Speakers

Disasters are local; integrating government entities, the private sector, volunteers, military and non‐governmental organizations must be planned and practiced.

Preparedness and response readiness must be built collaboratively, planned, trained and evaluated. Failure to do any of these will have an impact on response.

Comprehensive systems of emergency management are infrequently finalized until a disaster occurs. If the scale of disasters is limited within respective areas of local authorities and boundaries of prefectures, then the response is generally successful. Yet if a disaster beyond that scale occurs, there may be difficulties coordinating respective activities of organizations and prefectures.

Utilization of a traditional system of organizing local people for flood fighting plays an important role in flood damage reduction in Japan.

Decrease of flood frequency due to flood control works, coupled with various societal changes such as urbanization and an aging population weakens the local community’s capability to cope with floods.

Efforts are being made to vitalize the traditional flood fighting system and to improve information dissemination methods to cope with recent changes to the local capacity.

The discussion brought out the various countries’ preparedness and response structures, but more significantly the ever‐evolving citizen perceptions of the government’s role in emergency response.


The trend in Japan is that the public relies increasingly on the government to defend against hazards, which is already an expectation in the U.S.

In Sweden, the response comes from the bottom up, not top down, but could escalate to a nationally coordinated effort, supported by law. In the Netherlands there are elements from both the top and bottom, converging.

Consensus: regardless of the level of state or federal government emergency response, coordinated citizen preparedness and response remains key in all nations. Social capital is a key catalyst for the development of these citizen and local groups. A decline in this element is partly responsible for Japan’s declining troops of volunteer flood fighters. This certainly applies to other nations.

Consensus: governments need to be backed by legislation that clarifies agency roles and responsibilities to best execute their missions. The more crisis events that occur, the easier it is to garner support for new legislation and programs.


There is no set federal emergency response plan in Japan for a flood that would affect multiple districts. Can all nations benefit from a national emergency preparedness and response framework?

Regarding evacuation, most countries cannot initially force citizens to evacuate, but in Taiwan the military can facilitate this. What is the case in most nations regarding the rights of citizens to stay at home during an event?

Sweden sends representatives to witness emergency response worldwide, i.e. September 11th, Madrid attacks, etc. The Netherlands has cited Hurricane Katrina as a turning point in risk awareness resulting in improved preparation. What other nations travel to ongoing crises in other countries specifically to witness and learn from “live” emergency response efforts?

15

Breakout Session: Providing Areas for Flooding/Benefits of Natural Floodplains Major Issues Posed by Introductory Speakers

The challenge is ecosystems are under stress from demographic stress, climate stress and policy stress.

The USA traditional view that “water resources” and associated lands are for development only needs to change because lack of consideration that a nation’s economy is underpinned by healthy and productive natural resources.

A vision is needed for establishing a high level vision that integrates developed and natural values. If buildings cannot be sited outside of floodprone areas, then they must be elevated or

floodproofed. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publications include guidance for construction,

retrofitting, and best practices and FEMA grant programs fund a variety of flood mitigation efforts and promote resilient construction.

FEMA develops code and standard recommendations based on post‐disaster building performance observations and works to get these incorporated into model codes and standards and promote flood‐resistant construction.


Many countries in Asia are built in marshes and floodplains, homes have been elevated for centuries. People know they must live with floods, sustainable.

Need to balance resources – ecosystem and costs Need to look at water resources in watersheds/basin comprehensively. Need to place emphasis now on comprehensive watershed/basin planning, mitigation and not just

after an event. FEMA bought out 40,000 structures since the 1990’s, 95% were after an event. No program in place

to buy vacant land, need partnerships. Observation from presentation by Scotland, optimization of landscape restoration to reduce

flooding is important. Inspired individuals, not federal agencies, worked to restore the ecosystem and urban areas.


As standards of living increase, more at risk, do we need to move away from elevation into better land use?

Need a paradigm shift in how we think in the watershed perspective from addressing issues after an event to before the event occurs?

Need to have a flood risk management strategy in place to put into motion when there is an event. How do we look at change to development practices?

16

Breakout Session: Enabling Public Participation Major Issues Posed by Introductory Speakers

Despite significant differences between the US and France in governmental structure, presenters from both countries viewed flood risk management as a “shared responsibility” across government levels and among stakeholders. For this reason, presenters from both countries noted the need for informing the public of flood risk and involving stakeholders in the decision making process.

Presenters from both France and the US noted the importance of ensuring continuous public involvement, rather than just engaging the public at limited, discrete points in the process of analyzing, mitigating and responding to flood risks.

Both presenters from the US described their respective Federal agencies’ efforts to move from a role of simply informing the public of flood risk information to a more expansive role of engaging the public in flood risk management decision making.

Mr. Cardwell, representing the US Army Corps of Engineers, emphasized the importance of including those parties who are most affected by the flood risks, including those cases where they otherwise may lack the time, ability, or resource to effectively participate.

Mr. Wright, representing the US Federal Emergency Management Agency, noted difference between the interest and needs of local officials and the general public for flood risk information and engagement in decision making.


The relationship between stakeholder involvement and stakeholder accountability was addressed. In relation to the US, the argument was made that the US public involvement efforts may be focusing too much on the beneficiaries of federally financed flood risk management measures, while excluding the views of all other tax payers who are footing the bill. In relation to France, a related point was raised that recipients of publicly financed flood insurance payments often choose to rebuild in flood‐prone areas.

A question was raised relating to the public’s willingness to take on a larger role in flood risk decision making, and whether this presented a challenge to efforts to foster greater public involvement. Mr. Cardwell responded that a public involvement strategy must recognize that different stakeholders will want to be engaged at different levels and the strategy must allow for that. At the same time, a public involvement strategy must insure that the interests of all stakeholders are represented, even the interests of those stakeholders that are unaware or unable to participate.

Challenges and Remaining Questions Flood risk management is a shared responsibility across multiple levels of government and

numerous stakeholders. For this reason, public information and public involvement are critical elements of effective flood risk management.

Different stakeholders groups have differing flood risk information needs and differing degrees of interest in engaging in decision making. An effective public involvement strategy must recognize and address these differing needs.

Efforts to foster public involvement must also address the question of whether and how to hold stakeholders accountable for choices that increase flood risk and the associated liabilities.

17

Breakout Session: Terminology for Flood Risk Management Leading Question: Do we need to develop a common vocabulary?

Major Issues

What terms create the most confusion and when? What terms, if any, are contentious among professionals? What terms need revision?


Risk terminology has been developed in several related areas addressing public risk issues including environmental, public health and safety. Terminology has become a problem in this changing paradigm about how we describe federal activities as they relate to protecting communities post Katrina.

At lease twelve definitions of risk were identified practitioners and or agencies commonly accept none

Difference between flood risk and vulnerability communicates the importance of social impacts rather than physical impacts

Society for Risk Analysis tried to establish a common lexicon with no success. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) engineering regulations due to variability in definitions,

define terms in regulations and policy so they know how they are being applied. Part of the problem is that the term is both common and technical so it has cultural meaning as well

as technical Terms have been confused in an attempt to communicate with the public ( i.e., 1% chance of flood

and 100 year flood.) Profession vs. public communication. Visualization is part of the communication Nature of language is complicated; it is changing and complicated due to cultural changes. UN

international coordination required common understanding of the vocabulary in order to communicate

Missed opportunities of buying down risk even if you don’t get the terminology right… it’s a complicated formulation

Example: one percent flood. Flood risk map showing two different lines: one for the Corps and one line for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

What we learned from wetland classification system that to call it the same conditions you have to use the same terms and classification system.

Example discussed: flood plain ….most confusing. We use flood plain as if they are at the bottom of the river or at the top of the flood plain.


Terminology associated with risk management is context specific. We need to develop terminology for flood risk that builds trust with the public and professional consistency in recommendations to decision makers.

Technical terminology may require more precision than public communication terminology. International collaboration requires more discipline in defining terms. Flood risk management it at an early stage in developing risk‐based terminology for assessment and

decision‐making.

18

Breakout Session: National and International Exercises Key Points of Introductory Speakers

In the United Kingdom, Exercise Watermark (2011) has been developed in response to the recent flooding, to test local‐level planning as well as exercise national arrangements made since 2007.

Exercise tests: roles and responsibilities of voluntary and private organizations, emergency plan activation, risk communication, mutual aid arrangement, evacuation and sheltering, incident management systems, and transitional arrangements into the recovery phase.

In the United States, the Regional Resilience Efforts: Dams Sectors Exercise Series (DSES) is a collaborative program between the federal, state, and local governments as well as the private sector with the aim of identifying, analyzing, assessing, and enhancing regional preparedness and disaster resilience.

Specific scenarios, natural or manmade, are studied through a regional baseline assessment, regional consequence assessment, and development of a regional resilience strategy.

Insights and Observations Additional Examples of International Exercises

o US: the International Boundary and Water Commission conduct exercises before hurricane season. Local, state, and federal stakeholders practice scenarios to identify who responds and when and the proper equipment needed. Also includes our Mexican counterpart. Exercises include ‘table‐top’ discussions and field exercises.

o The Netherlands: use a 3‐fold approach beginning in 2008 including a nationwide exercise lasting one week based on provided scenarios: coastal, river, and lake scenarios. Plan to run exercise nationwide every four years.

o Sweden: have different kinds of exercises including training at local levels, among river coordination groups, and the entire river basin management

o The Philippines: a national exercise does not exist; however, local efforts and NGOs in flood prone communities frequently run exercises. Flood response has become a part of the culture in many areas of the Philippines

Strengths in Gaining Exercise Participation o UK: government passed the Civil Contingency Act which placed duty on private and public

sector utility services to plan and prepare for events and take part in exercises. Also, encourage the idea of business continuity to plan for a variety of emergency events. Therefore, participation in exercises is for the benefit of the business.

Suggestion: Would it be effective to form small scale international teams to look at flooding and the performance of preparedness and responsive actions?

Challenges and Remaining Questions With the DSES, resources are limited at the local, community level to run exercises. Mainly,

participation is an issue. In the UK, the Civil Contingency Act does not require plans for prevention of floods, only preparation

for response. Within exercises, there is a need for a shift in mentality and culture to work more towards

preparedness and recovery, not just response. In Japan, societal changes have resulted in less participation in “flood fighting” volunteers

19

Breakout Session: Visualization Major Issues Posed by Introductory Speakers

Flood hazard identification alone does not lead to actions that reduce flood risk and damages Traditional flood hazard mapping, with just frequency similar to Federal Emergency Management

Agency’s National Flood Insurance Rate Maps, may not enable a broader understanding of flood risk.

Communities’ awareness and understanding of flood risk needs to be increased to better enable actions to avoid or reduce flood risk and damages

By providing hazard and risk maps, it provides the opportunity to pull all the information together and begin to convey a message effectively.


Need to have multiple ways of conveying risk and need to ensure that the public doesn’t just focus on the line on the map. This needs be accomplished with various datasets and products. Particular datasets and products include the use of: depth grids; multiple frequencies; historical flood events; depth and velocity; degrees of risk in economic terms, etc.

The message provided with the particular hazard or risk map is just as important as the data that went into the product.

With advances in technology, there are expanded possibilities with displaying data and datasets and new ways to better visualize risk.

Technology, when used properly, can enable better interaction with public about their risk. It can be used to increase their awareness and understand of a particular hazard or event. Technology can help the discussion move away from ‘why’ to ‘how or what’ does this mean in terms the public can understand.


In many cases, agencies have more robust datasets and technology advances that allow hazard and risk information to be better displayed. However, even with these advances, there are still limitations to conveying the message that is understood by the public. It is important to deliver the appropriate messages along with the right map products.

Given the level of detail in the data, uncertainty is inherent in any analyses. How best should uncertainty be assessed? If uncertainty mapping is a product to be shared with the public, can uncertainty mapping be displayed and clearly understood by the public? Should this type of product look different than others (i.e. lines are the map should be fuzzy rather than a clear line)?

For high uncertainty mapping, there are concerns with sharing the information with the public. Should it be published to the public and if so, are there a liability issues with sharing this information given the possible uncertainty levels?

For hazard and risk mapping, how best do you strike a balance between the level of detailed analysis performed versus the coverage for a particular area?

20

Plenary Discussions on Break‐Out Sessions

Break‐Out Session: Preparedness and Emergency Response Big Topics Missing from Discussion

o It is very important to learn from disaster o How to integrate preparedness and emergency response? o Early Warning o Need more focus on the recovery side of emergency management o The impact of social structure needs to be considered, especially the different needs of an

urban area versus a rural area o The disaster may be local, but the consequences may be regional, national, or international o Communicating the consequences o New plans and procedures must be developed and ready for implementation right after an

event occurs o In some cases need national and international prediction and warning of events and

response to events o Need to know how to handle too much help

Priority Question/Issue o How to sustain risk awareness among the public? o Aging population o Communication o Confusion over terminology leads to confusion over message How could we include historic case studies into the message?

o Focus on preparation and mitigation Align and incentivize mitigation and lowering risk Reduce victim mentality (e.g., there was nothing I could have done)

o Preventing risks without using structural solutions o Coordinated preparedness at all levels is needed o Need to learn from other disasters (like earthquakes) and disasters in other countries

Break‐Out Session: Providing Areas for Flooding/ Benefits of Natural Floodplains Big Topics Missing from Discussion

o There are no long‐term strategies for living with flood events o The goals of water management and ecosystems do not seem to be well aligned o We do not have a consistent method of understanding ecosystem services and benefits o Need more emphasis on recognizing and protecting the value of the currently undeveloped

floodplains o How are states and non‐governmental organizations showing success at the local scale?

Priority Question/Issue o Need a national vision o What is a natural floodplain? Do we have an inventory? o We are not appropriately accepting of the cost savings of non‐structural solutions and we do

not appropriately account for the long‐term costs associated with structural solutions. o Need to be able to identify the values of the floodplain in order to plan mitigation projects o Better land use is needed o Need to be able to address the question of “What’s in it for me?” and better communicate

with stakeholders about why these issues are important

21

Break‐Out Session: Enabling Public Participation Big Topics Missing from Discussion

o Identify communities that are performing well in flood risk management as an incentive o Need new ways to incentivize participation in programs o Need to develop roles for “shared responsibility” o A single approach may not work; need to consider diverse populations and changing

demographics o When communicating with the public explain the options for addressing flood problems and

the consequences of each option o The concept of “public risk” and the language used by professionals to communicate this

risk is very complex and difficult for the public to grasp o Need to be able to demystify the flood o Better use of media could be made in communicating flood risk o Dealing with the public is messy and frustrating, but absolutely necessary

Priority Question/Issue o There is a need for greater dialogue between the many parties (Federal, State, and local)

involved o Need actionable information o How do you truly engage the public? How to reach the “unaware stakeholder?” How can we get 90% of the public engaged?

o We are not sure that the public officials can even understand the concerns of the public o How to address shared responsibility and investment? Exercises are a key tool Develop a common vision and goals before the disaster

Break‐Out Session: Terminology

Big Topics Missing from Discussion o People need to understand more than just the terminology o Need to understand how probabilities and risk are expressed o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency 1% annual

chance flood event o Need to improve risk communication and bring about “shared responsibility” by bringing

society to the point of being willing to own some portion of flood risk o How to establish international acceptance of common terminology; use this body of

professionals to establish o Need clear, understandable language and terminology for the public which differs from the

language used among experts Priority Question/Issue

o Need to use the appropriate level/message/terminology for the audience; “read” the audience before delivering the message

o Professionals keep changing what the terms mean, especially when administrations change o It is more important to develop a common, general understanding of the terms than it is to

exactly define each term o Need a common language for technical exchanges but also need a simpler language for

public communication o Flood Risk Management is a new concept, and consistency in the national and international

community is needed

22

Breakout Session: National and International Exercises Big Topics Missing from Discussion

o Participation in other countries’ exercises would be valuable Establish a panel to explore this participation Need greater recognition of world‐wide exercises

o These exercises do not actually model what people would do when faced with the actual situation

o Exercises highlight the importance of flood mapping as a tool for communicating hazard and risk

Priority Question/Issue o Focus of exercises is on emergency management and life safety o The United States focuses on public utility restoration o Need better coordination of international exercises and sharing of lessons learned Need international sharing of experiences Should have international observers at exercises

Break‐Out Session: Visualization

Big Topics Missing from Discussion o What message to we want to inform the public? o Bring education into daily life o More than just a technology issue, also a process issue o This discussion ties into the terminology discussion o Need to add information to flood mapping on how the public should responds and react

based on the information provided in the maps o Should take advantage of new technologies such as games and Web 2.0

Priority Question/Issue o There could be an entire session on sharing tools and techniques that each agency has

developed to help the public better understand our terminology o Better use these tools to communicate risks and best practices o Need to convey an understanding of uncertainty that can reach all stakeholders

General Group Discussion Each table shared one overarching priority.

We did not talk about how to keep people out of harm’s way, so we will still have future risk and future costs

o Non‐structural solutions, which can reduce operation, maintenance, and capitalization (life‐cycle) costs, relate to this

The priority question relating to terminology is developing an understanding of whether risk is a metric, a standard, or both

o Suggest that risk as a metric is probably appropriate, but there is some danger if risk moves toward becoming a standard

There are a number of important factors related to public participation and terminology and visualization

o We need to engage the public in what we do from standpoint of understanding diverse populations, changing demographics, organization of teams (community‐based teams), and a clear understanding of terminology

On the topic of benefits of natural floodplains o There is a need for national direction or vision, perhaps through a Foresight study, to lay out

roles and responsibilities, the end‐state in terms of natural functions, how to value economic development, social development, and other aspects of floodplain management

23

o There should not be a Federal prescription, but there should be dialog engaging local participants

o Should probably be done on a national basis, not an international basis In terms of visualization and terminology, we have a lot of information we want to inform public of,

but we must acknowledge that different people need different information o We do not consider what information the public really needs o In terms of terminology, the public needs more than just numbers o Regardless of whether we find our way to a common language, we need the public to

understand our terminology o Preparedness is very important, and needs to be integrated between public, private sectors

and non‐governmental organizations; how can we achieve this? Related to preparedness and emergency response, it is cheaper to prepare than to respond

o Need to capture best practices, lessons learned, etc., manage expectations, set parameters of exercises

o Need common valuation of the floodplain o Buying down risk with structural and nonstructural mechanisms in shared

responsibility/shared investment approach, How should we value buy‐down mechanisms to set up framework for shared

responsibility/shared investment? (monetary and non‐monetary valuation) An important consideration of preparedness and response is that disasters may be local but the

consequences may be regional, national, or international o Need higher‐level procedures that can supplement local procedures o Need greater emphasis on living more effectively with risk of flooding in developed areas

A common topic in each break‐out was the concept of learning from each other o We can send observers to other disasters to learn about how other countries respond and

manage disaster o We can also learn from each other’s experiences on how to involve the public and learn

from each other to develop common terminology Another important concept to consider is “What it’s in it for me?”

o There is a problem getting the attention of stakeholders o Communicating to stakeholders involves convincing them of what’s in it for them

24

Moving Forward: Addressing Difficult Decisions Major Issues

Safety issues with aging population Data gaps in reporting conditions of existing infrastructure limit the ability to prioritize Decision Support Weighing Techniques are needed for risk tradeoffs Benefits of flooding to ecosystems need to be considered and quantifiable Financing and insurance are necessary partners in developing comprehensive solutions Political will/communication so appropriate decision are made in a timely fashion Less money in some countries means that there will always be an imbalance between those who are

protected and those who are not Adapting to climate change will pose additional uncertainty on flood risk management Determining criteria for projects with multiple principles will require combining objectives

Approaches

Belgium Decisions are developed with substantial public input. They discussed with 20 counties their

vulnerabilities, types of flood risks and how to prioritize. Key Rule for Assessments for Decision Making / Decision Support:

a. Decisions are structured in terms of economic assessments as well as levels of risk b. where is the risk highest and where to intervene c. what are the appropriate measures

Evaluation based on both cost/benefit as well as multiple objectives (MCDA) Need to combine all objectives and account for environmental, cultural heritage and safety. We are

using MCDA in combining objectives for our assessments. It is also used to develop priorities through public participation.

Through these assessments we can define the limits of the different stakeholders tradeoffs using this bottom up approach.

Recognize that the future will include both long term growth and climate change that will increase consequences and risk so it will be difficult to maintain risk at stable levels

The problem of quantifying ecosystem services is being done through the United Nations effort on monetizing ecosystem benefits. This will also be used for transnational impacts and tradeoffs with economics. Will be published next year.

United States How we make choices and decisions is really about money and how we make investment

recommendations. We have a rigorous methodology for decisions; our planning process is very rational and logical.

Decisions are based on a. wise use of flood plain b. using best available science c. with a level of detail commensurate to support the decisions d. accounting for significant affects to the environment e. while addressing risk and uncertainty

National Economic Development benefits historically have been the primary criteria. Our proposed revised standards include how to protect and restore natural recourses. How you value ecosystem services is difficult, there is no one method that is acceptable.

25

Then you put that in an unstructured political process where other priorities are added. Then how do you develop implementing principles for environmental justice and how do you apply it for native American tribes are significant policy issues that have to be incorporated into these practices. How we articulate values and implement principles are difficult challenges.

Japan Japan is an aging society and government suffers from budget cutting with impacts on

infrastructure. Government wants to do a huge job without a lot of money. Technology is being looked at to accomplish this.

Flood Management issues effect poor people the most especially as development in third world increases.

Key issue with aging infrastructure is that we need data. Data gaps in maintenance are prevalent, they forget about that after construction.

United Kingdom Issues are universal, no country on its own in developing solutions that require technical capability

and political will Less money in developing countries so will be more ruthless in priorities Climate change is biggest threat motivating people to innovate. We will need to adapt, and will be in

unchartered territory Integrated solutions required so we have to look at carbon mitigation in implementation.

Insights and Observations While there was acknowledgement that all countries faced similar problems, there was very little

discussion on how to collaborate in developing technology and policy collectively. Only in the case of the UN’s effort on developing a model for quantifying ecosystem services was identified. They are using a collaborative process to develop a universal model.


How to address intergenerational equity when you are looking at monetizing resources that may be less valuable in the future in context of net present value while considering increasing impact from climate change in the future?

o More money for flood management should be incorporated with development, then it’s a shared investment in flood management

o Climate change is also global change in flood risk so it needs to be integrated into economic development with an understanding on how it impacts future development

o Climate change is also about demographic change, so economic data sets will no longer be as valued as in the past and will be less reliable. As we start to measure effects of climate change we will have to adapt our policies.

How can we develop political will to make difficult choices that are beyond the term that they are in office rather than relying on the next major disaster to make changes which is more costly?

o Political process needs a implementable method of assessment for risk impacts. Environmental assessment has been developed over time, but we don’t have a disaster impact risk assessment that helps us understand how development impacts disaster risk. Technocrat needs a politically attractive methodology for disaster impact risk assessment and adding it to environmental impact assessment.

o Risks per say are not good or bad. We need vocabulary and procedures aligned so public can be informed and understand whether risks are good or bad for them. We need to recognize that people may like to take risks, but they also need to be accountable for taking them like building in the flood area.

26

Needs for further research in policy development and collaboration o Decision support tools so risk can be communicated to decision makers and the public o Benefits of flooding need to be uniformly quantifiable for international watersheds o Financing and insurance require more technical understanding about responsibility for

residual risk and how it is quantified o Political will and communication tools are necessary for difficult decisions on how and

where to develop and when to use limited funding resources to reduce risk o Some countries will have less, so how will social justice be addressed o Adaptation and mitigation for climate change in coastal areas needs to start sooner rather

than latter, so we need more local / regional models to develop solutions o Criteria and Principles for decision making for new development as well as renovating

existing

27

National Governance

The major issues, insights and observations, and challenges and remaining questions below capture highlights of the discussions. A paper included as Appendix 2 provides a comparison of papers submitted that address governance in nine countries. Major Issues

Ensuring political representation for vulnerable populations Achieving interagency and intergovernmental coordination Engaging the public in understanding and taking responsibility for flood risk management, including

residual risk, particularly in cases where the national government has historically provided a high level of flood risk protection.

Reconciling watershed boundaries with administrative boundaries for purposes of watershed based planning

Meeting short term flood risk management needs, while still engaging in long‐run flood risk management planning

Insights and Observations from Panel Discussion

Challenges governments face in addressing the increased complexity in understanding concepts such as “flood risk management” vs. “flood protection” and watershed based planning Philippines Political representation for vulnerable populations: Although a priority for the government

should be addressing flood risk in areas inhabited by vulnerable citizens, these same citizens lack the political clout to ensure they are a priority.

Interagency coordination: Coordination is needed among the numerous agencies involved in flood risk management

Netherlands Engaging the public in understanding and talking about residual risk: Historically the

government has held a “paternalistic” attitude, sending a message to the public of “don’t worry” the government will provide flood protection. For this reason, the public has not played a major role in managing flood risk. This attitude began to change over the last 10 years; however, engaging the public remains a challenge.

United States Defining what “success” in risk communication and public involvement in flood risk

management looks like. Developing an effective risk communication and public involvement strategy, with a focus on

communicating the consequences of flooding, not just the hazard (e.g. using visual tools, such as water levels marked on structures)

Engaging agencies that engage in activities that modify the consequences of flooding: Making sure that water management agencies that take actions to modify flood hazard are engaging with other agencies with programs that modify floodplain use choice or otherwise influence the consequences of flooding. This includes engaging the States who have a closer link to local communities than do Federal agencies.

Germany

28

Guiding and facilitating among Germany’s 16 states to ensure coordination in their flood risk management planning and response activities and to move them towards a more common approach to flood risk management. Germany’s 16 states hold a large share of the responsibility for flood risk management planning, response and ensuring public participation in such activities. They are likewise responsible for interstate coordination, but there are challenges in achieving this coordination.

The National government plays a facilitator role to develop a common approach among the 16 Federal states

Working now to engage all stakeholders early on in the process of implementing the mapping requirements of the EU Directive

Whether and how Federal/ Central government could influence local governments to adopt ideas

viewed as sound flood risk management by the Federal/Central government.

Germany Doing so is challenging for the Federal government, given state autonomy. Federal government

tries to bring together and integrate states and colleagues using workshops and conference. In post‐disaster circumstances, states are more receptive to Federal government involvement

United States US works through programs such as the Silver Jackets Program and the MidWest Task Force to

engage states, locals and the public in flood risk management activities and planning in advance of a disaster, so that ground work is laid for the government introduce long range flood risk mitigation plans in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, when the public is most receptive to change.

Netherlands In the Netherlands, where 65% of the country is flood prone, some local governments are

actually moving faster than the national government to inform/ engage the public, e.g. the City of Rotterdam, where local officials are taking measures to inform inhabitants of flood risk in the City.

Philippines National government is responsible for major flood control projects (riverine systems, etc.).

Local government is responsible for localized flooding issues, such as water permits and storm water drainage. Challenges arise in cases where a major river runs through a major city, so both the Nationals and locals have flood risk management responsibilities, and yet they fail to coordinate. In particular, challenges arise when the national government makes flood control plans, but doesn’t consider that there are local plans that have to be incorporated.

Whether mitigation, recovery, long term planning, or some other type of activity represented

their nation’s priority areas of focus; whether and how national priorities were backed by funding appropriations.

Philippines In the past, the national government’s National Disaster Council focused mainly on the response

phase of the disaster cycle Recently, with the adoption of the Disaster Risk Reduction Management Law, new councils

established, with local counterparts, put equal weight on the other three phases of the disaster cycle, including mitigation, preparedness and recovery.

29

Netherlands National focus is in on flood prevention, but there’s now a desire to move more towards flood

risk management, particular with the adoption of the European Union directive and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

National legislature is required by law to subsidize levee maintenance. Funding for prevention efforts comes through local water boards, which examine levees every 6 years, identify needs and secure money to strengthen the levees. The National Legislature is required by laws with explicit standards to subsidize local water board efforts to maintain the levees.

United States US priority is establishing a process of shared responsibility for reducing risk at a watershed

level, which requires establishing a common vision at the watershed level. Solutions to flood risk will not be achieved at the national level of government, rather Federal government will focus on enabling state and local governments to identify and achieve a common vision.

The US is focusing on doing as much as can be done with existing funding and authorities.

Germany National priorities are on the entire process, prevention, recovery and preparedness, not any

single phase. How countries are addressing the challenges of moving towards long term goals

Netherlands The 2nd Delta Commission is attempting to look into the far future with a national particular

focus on prevention due to vulnerability of the nation Both Hurricane Katrina and the EU Directive provided the impetus to start the 2nd Commission,

which is supported by Parliament with an annual budget of $1B Euros. Looking at comprehensive approach now, freshwater supply also considered, as are other

problems Have not fully achieved the goal of looking long term. Have seen complications due to different

parties of the government changing. Current right wing administration and the Parliament are discussing how the Commission will proceed.

Philippines Government has long term plans, some are 20 to 30‐year old flood control plans, but

implementation is short‐sighted due to budget constraints. There is no long term budgeting, so projects get downsized or destroyed. Most existing projects provide low levels of protection.

How nations might achieve watershed planning in the long run.

United States U.S. has no formal watershed governance structure and no definable watershed planning

process Newly reconvened Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force (FIFM‐TF) is striving

to establish three fundamental national goals of 1) public safety, 2) beneficial use and 3) economic sustainability.

30

Outlining some basic goals for watershed planning to focus on and to work with states and communities before a flood event occurs.

Germany Currently, transitioning from a period where states functioned along administrative, rather than

watershed borders. Under the EU directive, there is a renewed focus on integrated water resources management and water basin level planning, but they must still deal with administrative borders.

Challenge is to combine short‐term and long‐term planning and management Short‐term measures should not conflict with long‐term strategy Climate change and transboundary issues are complicating factors Switzerland shares the same challenge as Germany with watershed boundaries not matching

administrative boundaries. Following a large flood event in 1987, affected region moved from a flood defense approach to

an approach focused on prevention and risk management. Found that the risk management approach, combining structural and nonstructural measures, “worked well” following subsequent flood in 2005.

Observations from the audience

There is a role for legislation, as well as policy development, in addressing flood risk management challenges. There are some circumstances where only legislation will resolve interagency conflicts.

Extent to which public is aware of flood risk and accepts responsibility for managing that risk seems to be in part, a function of the degree to which the national government provides flood defenses. In the Philippines, where budget constraints have prevented the government from providing high levels of structural flood protection, there is a culture/acceptance of flood disasters and social mechanisms have developed to deal with flood risk. In contrast, the Netherlands struggles with the challenge of a public view that flood risk is “not our problem”, as the government has invested heavily in maintaining a national flood defense system.


How can watershed planning be achieved in the long run? How can short‐term flood risk management needs be balanced with long‐run, watershed management objectives?

How can governments ensuring political representation for vulnerable populations? What approaches can be employed to improve interagency and intergovernmental coordination? How can government better engage the public in understanding and taking responsibility for flood

risk management? How can historical mindsets that “the government will take care of us” be undone?

What actions can government take in advance of flood disasters to ensure the groundwork is laid to implement long‐run mitigation efforts in the aftermath of a flood, when public interest in flood risk management is the greatest?

How do governments define what constitutes “success” in flood risk management and who gets to make that determination (national government, local government? floodplain inhabitants?).

31

National Visions and Plans Major Issues

The Delta Program is a long term planning example from the Netherlands; will be updated yearly, presented to Parliament

Importance of delta protection o Delta regions face a number of challenges, such as expected climate change, soil subsidence,

urbanization o Delta regions are important ecological areas, attractive areas to live and work, and worth

preserving Delta Commission 2008 said that the threat was not acute, but measures to improve flood risk

management and fresh water supply should be prepared urgently o These measures take a long time to prepare and construct, so there is a need to get started

now With sea‐level rise, the frequency of coastal flooding expected to increase

o Also expecting an increase of coincidence of coastal and riverine flooding The people of the Netherland can stay in the floodprone portions of the country, but they need to

focus on safety and flood risk management o Need solidarity among the citizens of the Netherlands because floods will impact all areas of

Netherland, even the dry areas Central steering of these activities is needed, but they should be regionally implemented Long‐term stability of funding very important

o Having separate fund for flood risk removes the conflict between competing policy fields, not all of which are related to flood risk management, to fund in a given year

Approaches Implement Delta Program to adapt flood risk management to future challenges such as climate

change o Delta Commissioner directs multi‐governmental process o Take preventative measures with Delta Programs

Taking a broad view wherever possible, wider than just focusing on flood risk and fresh water supply whenever such a broad view is possible

Plan and adapt prior to a disaster, not after the occurrence of a disaster Adaptive planning is an iterative feedback and learning‐based strategy to cope with uncertainty in

decision making Decisions on water management standards should be made at the national level, with a framework

for regional implantation provided Safety against flooding based on risk management (includes fatalities, economic damage and

disruption) Work with natural processes using water systems approach Delta Fund supplied by natural gas revenues and long‐term loans Looking for “tipping points” in the future , which are points where existing system no longer meets

its requirements so that something needs to change

Insights and Observations Climate change has many impacts on the Netherlands, as with many other delta areas

o Sea‐level rise, also increasing Salt intrusion

o More extreme storms and more erosion of coastal systems o Droughts will likely increase in summer season

Deficits in the fresh‐water system may become a challenge

32

o Expect higher discharge from the major rivers as well o More intense rainfall expected o All combined lead to higher probability of flooding if no actions are taken o Subsidence of about 10 cm per 100 years

This is a multi‐generational problem Netherlands is well protected country, but if the structures providing protection were not there, the

country would look quite a bit different o Climate change may lead to massive changes anyway

Another problem is the continuation of new urban developments in threatened areas The best approach is to work together with natural processes

o This is more flexible and cheaper than building large‐scale structures Should use multifunctional design to provide more added value to society and more acceptance

from the public

Challenges and Remaining Questions There is uncertainty in the future climate, population, economy, and society

o So, a flexible strategy is needed It can take a long time to get flood risk management strategies designed and constructed, so it is

important that we get started now If planning is not done properly now, future generations will only have to pay more to deal with the

continuing problems The strategy in the Netherlands, even after collaboration with New Orleans, is “no overtopping”, but

is this the best philosophy? Is there a need for evacuation plans, in case an event does overtop the structural solutions? Have any preparations for an event that does overtop been taken?

o There are multiple layers to provide protection against floods Land use and evacuation plans are considered, but in a large part of the Netherlands

evacuation is not really an option because the areas are so heavily populated Therefore, the primary focus needs to be on prevention of large‐scale flooding

o In the strategy under development flood defense breaching has to be prevented, but some overtopping is acceptable So an important part of the strategy is to how best to design structures in such a

way that breaches cannot occur, and overtopping is essentially eliminated The Super Levees of Japan are an example they are considering, but they

are looking for other ideas as well o An interesting problem with this strategy is that there are no small events to respond to and

practice with, so there is no way of knowing how well the country would react to the large event occurring

33

Legislative Approaches and Transnational Cooperation

Major Issues

There is a worldwide need to address transnational flood risk; examples are the Danube river in Europe or the Rio Grande in Mexico/U.S.

The European Union (EU) has the power to legislate this coordination among member states, while the U.S. and Mexico can sign treaties to agree to cooperate.

The European Union passes legislation such as the Flood Risk Directive and Water Framework Directive (WFD), or “directives,” which are then transposed into the national law of the 27 member states. There are specific provisions for relations with neighboring EU countries. The solidarity principle will not allow one country to mitigate flood risk in a way that could increase the risk for other nations.

Mexico and the U.S. traces the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) back to 1889. National presidents appoint commissioners who meet regularly to establish “minutes,” which are legally binding (over 300 exist to date).

Both of these examples in Europe and North America include cooperation for maintenance of dams, levees and channels. The U.S. and Mexico also hold joint training sessions.

Approaches In Europe, the agreements regarding transboundary water management came long after the

establishment of the EU, and the EU is still developing the “risk” component. The IBWC Commissioner notes that the IBWC began developing as soon as 1848, when the first

boundary was drawn between Mexico and the U.S. Many state boundaries lie directly in the middle of a river or structure such as a dam, so the need for cooperation was apparent.

Insights and Observations The question was posed about the relevance of the Hungarian toxic flood to flood risk management

in the EU. This flood was considered an industrial accident and therefore does not fall under the umbrella of EU flood risk management; sewage floods are also not included.

The European Union is not like a bilateral relationship that U.S. and Mexico share, but it is also unlike a fully sovereign nation. It lies somewhere in between, which can have positive implications and also challenges for transnational flood risk management.

Challenges and Remaining Questions The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the last resort forum for enforcing compliance of EU

legislation transposition and application. The ECJ has the power to issue penalty fees to ensure cooperation in flood risk management among member states.

What would happen if the U.S. or Mexico violated a “minute” or treaty on cooperation of flood risk management? Is there a forum to prosecute such violations? This is a big difference between this and the EU case.

Steps have been taken in North America and Europe to increase water quality across borders. The WFD embodies this in the EU, and several “minutes” embody this between Mexico and the U.S.

34

Insuring, Underwriting and Sharing the Risks Major Issues

All countries are different as they deal with insurance and have different roles and responsibilities across government and private industry.

In the management of flood risk, there is a role at the Federal, state, and local level. There is a shared responsibility in flood risk management with risk reduction happening at the local levels.

o One example of this collaboration is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ program ‘Silver Jackets’. Silver Jackets does not duplicate effort or take authority away but, rather is a state‐led effort that allows for collaboration across all levels of government.

The impact of a disaster can be kept relatively small if people work together. Human networks assist before higher level help arrives.

Approaches

The decisions made by communities and property owners may be driven by coverage of insurance, cost of insurance, and whether insurance is mandatory.

o In the United Kingdom, the cost of insurance is relatively inexpensive and the riskiest people pay much less than what they should probably pay. It was also highlighted that the UK’s current process tends to stifle innovations and affects poor planning

o In the United States, they use a 3‐pronged approach where (1) the risk is identified, (2) flood insurance is available, and (3) there are floodplain management ordinances communities need to comply with.

o In France, insurance plays a role in flood risk prevention. Everyone living in household needs to have insurance with a mortgage. Their money is put together in a specific fund to fund mitigation and to cover losses to disaster. Premium stays the same even if a property owner performs mitigation on their structure.

One approach has the role of the government to be: o Identifying and mapping the hazard (e.g. floodplains) using the best available science; o Determining building codes and appropriate ordinances for locals to follow; o Determining incentives; and o Assisting locals with proper planning as they build out their communities or prepare prior to

an event. It is believed that subsidies should be called out and not built within the structure. Insurance rates

should be reflective of the risk. Insights and Observations

Insurance works best with high and low risk areas in the same pool. The re‐insurance community believes that subsidized rates drive the wrong behavior and decision. Disaster can be kept small if people work together. Human networks should be available to assist

everywhere but, in recent years human network isn’t as important and social capital is declining. Many people have little time and incentive to maintain closer relations with neighbors. This impacts the disaster management community because of the increase need to respond and be more prepared for the disaster. Overall it requires more resources.


Many nations are looking at their current insurance structures to determine potential new approaches. What is the best approach and what role should the government play in that approach?

Risk and insurance rates are related and should be related. The key question remains, if you are located in the highest risk areas, how expensive should the insurance be?

35

The insurance community needs to begin considering all types of risk not just flood (e.g. ice jams, mudslides, etc.). This impacts both the identification and insurance rating for these types of hazards.

Disaster preparedness culture can be formed through technology or more information but, it isn’t enough to have accurate forecasts and dissemination of information. Social capital and human network needs to be a part of this preparedness.

36

Bringing it all Together: Making Further Progress

Administrative Perspective There seems to be a common vision in managing flood risk such as

o Shifting away from management of flood waters only to managing also the consequences by land use, non‐structural alternatives, improved emergency preparedness, catchment basins, ensuring adaptability for climate changes and the demographic changes.

o The vision 4000 years ago in China (can no longer raise levees, need flood storage and retention areas) is still valid and is why we are here. From theory to practice the challenge. The vision is good but implementation is the challenge due to pressures to change, political will to reform and make changes is a very small window after an event, it is getting harder to justify a decision in uncertainty of budget declines, cost increases and what is the accepted tolerable risk to the individual and society.

o Each country faces challenges in going from the large national perspective to the states to the locals, different levels of authority.

Good news is that we are making progress. o Floodplain mapping in the US, with over 22,000 communities in the NFIP program, which are

instituting zoning ordinances, which is saving money. o European Union member states are making strides in flood risk assessment and

management. o European Union Directive has become a statutory base for a common vision and challenges.

There is more detail and sharing of information and sharing of experiences between countries.

Practitioner Perspective

Terminology – don’t use “100 year flood” (implies safe for next 99 years) The sense of unfairness in the U.S. – perception is inland verses coastal, because insurance on

tributaries pay higher rate because they are paying for the losses on the coasts. The focus of the media is on the coastal climate changes and Hurricane Katrina.

There is short term memory after a disaster. Need to communicate well, what progress we are making, such as digital maps, long to go on communication, need to do more.

Only 10% of those in high risk areas in the U.S. have flood insurance. Need a national vision that encourages state and locals to protect the floodplain as natural

resources other overtime we will fill up the floodplain with development. We don’t have a master plan for the U.S.

Partnership building is important. We have come a long way but we need to do more. o It will take more than one party to solve the issues. An example is the Regional team that

meets quarterly as a way to meet, and share individual problems to be solved. Academic Perspective

The framework is there, but we need to link the science, the policies and the managers. o We need to develop a method to pass the information to policy makers on climate change,

and other science. Need to better develop knowledge and capabilities and how it relates to policy makers.

o What is the government’s national/local community’s role? Management decision strategy

o Management needs to look at linkages, different disciplines, look at dynamics, need to look more at 10‐20 years out not just 50‐100 years in the future with climate change and social, ecosystem dynamics

o Need ways to see how we do in 10‐20 years and then adapt to changes.

37

Policy

Science ManagementClimate change, land use, geomorphology, definition of risk, floodplain definition, natural floodplain, ecosystem services

Need to communicate risk, public participation, maps, consensus building

Decision Support System

Vision, public support, shared responsibility, risk adverse, insurance, drought/waterEcosystems, combine of structural and non‐structuralDisaster risk management: Risk assessments, social capitalization, living with disasters

Insights and Observations Tools

Transferability of methods, tools and philosophy Flood risk management is an uncertain future

o Large structural works are coming to end of technical life, what to do replace or rebuild? o How are we evaluating the decisions on a large scale during an uncertain future? o Experts don’t agree on the amount of uncertainty o What are the tools needed to take into account the future?

Decision support systems, how to make decisions/priorities, use of comparison tools, case studies There is a need for more social media tools,

o To support public participation o To support outreach o Understanding the public and understanding if the public understands us o Expectations among countries is different, attitudes are different, need to find the best for

your country Revisit terminology for what is resilience, designed for structure to fail but what about resilient to

social impacts o Should be better balance in resilient in structure or society o Need sustainability in both structure and society

Benefit/cost policy – needs to change – o If one country has a current level of protection, how do they justify added safety and the

benefit/cost for funding priorities? Where do they start?

38

Communications and Outreach Tools for public participation for different countries Best experiences – exercises, public participation, and terminology Use of research , visualization, in communicating risk, end users need perspective from scientists to

end users polices Build social capital using things such as existing festivals to share information on flood risk

Climate Change

Climate change research needs to go from global to regional in order to really help the flood risk management

How to deal with mid‐term forecasts? Exercises and Disaster Response

Exercises – extend the idea to invite other countries to visit and watch National level exercises, early warning and maps are good Once disaster happens – we tend to rebuild

o Very bad exercise, movement to change disaster management o Foreign aid that comes in after events‐ for humanity not for prevention of disaster in the

first place o Purposes of foreign aid should not be reconstruction but prevention

Opportunities and Challenges

Insurance is still a work in progress Missing aspect of social equity in flood risk: flood risk management is part of social equity:

awareness of the population as to where the floods happen and what the consequences are has gone down, mobile population not as aware, people currently living in high risk areas are aware, new developments are not. Lower income, those with less resources in developing countries live in the floodplains, US requires insurance, developing countries don’t, also have cultural issues to deal with.

There are lots of commonality challenges o Opportunities not just approaches they are what we are trying to get out of flood risk

management o Transference of risk/transparent, what is a good flood risk practice?

Land use management and flood risk management must work together to work to reduce pressure to build in flood prone areas

Transferability of risk – budgets are not adequate, things designed 30‐40 years ago are not completed and now we deal with climate change. People accept evacuation

Risk is prioritization tool to help make right choice on where to start Valuing the national environment is important in flood risk management Small changes to save people are important to address Political Impact Assessment – way to help political will by developing objective measures that can be

tracked with a support methodology Politicians let heart rule after event – need to overcome What is the objective of the flood risk management program in your country? We are not helping politicians, who benefits and who pays, we not giving the right information so

they can make good decisions, process “that ties the hands” to keep them making good decisions

39

Summary and Close Major Issues

Need to build resilience, social capital (example of young boy taking responsibility for getting infant twin sisters to the top of the levee during a flood)

Need to think more holistically to be prepared Approaches

Highlight creative solutions such as wetlands mitigation banks, carbon credits o Dredging program finds a way to use spoil for beneficial uses o Need to find value for excess water


Developing “perfect storm”: economic crisis, aging infrastructure, climate change

Consider how we value water, will it be privatized, relationship with water availability and climate change

Investments are often made after disasters; how can that become an opportunity? o If just fixing, setting up for failure (it will be hard to get ahead of that cycle) o Need to make it right as it is fixed, not just put it back the way it was

To make change, need good plans, political will, and resources

Many different paradigms worth exploring further; worth circling the thousands of years of experience encompassed by those participating in these discussions back together in upcoming conferences


How will population demographics, sea‐level rise, land use changes affect our policies and programs (such as the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program)?

How do we make room for water?

How do we account for the full value of water?

Need to connect communicating risk, the shared risk principle (who pays, social capital, being resilient … the “whole of community”), and governance; everyone is a first responder and everyone shares the risk

40

APPENDIX 1

Organizations and Countries Contributing and Participating Organization Country Association of British Insurers United KingdomAssociation of State Floodplain Managers USABureau of Reclamation USACouncil Oak USADepartment of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University TaiwanEnvironment Agency, United Kingdom United KingdomFederal Emergency Management Agency USAFlemish Environment Agency BelgiumFM Global USAGerman Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety GermanyHR Wallingford Ltd United KingdomInstitute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia SloveniaInstitute of Hydraulic Research, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul Brasil BrazilInternational Centre for Water Hazard and Risk Management JapanISPRA High Institute for Environmental Protection and Research ItalyKorea Institute of Construction Technology South KoreaMinistry of Environment and Marine and Rural Affairs, Spain SpainMinistry of Infrastructure and Environment NetherlandsMinistry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan JapanMinistry of Sustainable Development, France FranceMyanmar Climate Change Watch Myanmar/BurmaNational Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management, Japan JapanNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States USANational Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction TaiwanOffice of Public Works, Ireland IrelandPhilippine Atmospheric, Geophysical & Astronomical Services Administration PhilippinesReinsurance Association of America USAResources for the Future USARijkswaterstaat NetherlandsScottish Government ScotlandStaff Delta Program Commissioner, Netherlands NetherlandsSwedish Civil Contingencies Agency SwedenSwiss Federal Office for the Environment SwitzerlandTransportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Congress USAU.S. Army (Civil Works) USAU.S. Army Corps of Engineers USAU.S. Department of Agriculture USAU.S. Environmental Protection Agency USAU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USAU.S. Geological Survey USAU.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission USAUniversity of Maryland USAUniversity of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City PhilippinesWeb and Writing Solutions Co USAWorld Bank USA

41

APPENDIX 2

Steering Committee, Facilitators, Synthesizers, and Logistical Support

International Steering Committee

Jos Van Alphen Rijkswaterstaat (Netherlands)

Doug Bellomo Federal Emergency Management Agency (USA)

Lisa Bourget U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USA)

Maria Braettemark European Commission (Belgium)

Stephen Carruth Federal Emergency Management Agency (USA)

Gerald Galloway University of Maryland (USA)

Edward Hecker U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USA)

Deborah Ingram Federal Emergency Management Agency (USA)

Jeff Jensen U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USA)

Kamoto Minoru International Centre for Water Hazard and Risk Management (Japan)

Eiji Ootsuki Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (Japan)

Pete Rabbon U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USA)

David Rooke Environment Agency (United Kingdom)

Kuniyoshi Takeuchi International Centre for Water Hazard and Risk Management (Japan)

Shigenobu Tanaka International Centre for Water Hazard and Risk Management (Japan)

Facilitators

Linda Manning The Council Oak

Gerald Galloway University of Maryland

Synthesizers

Lisa Bourget U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Stephanie Bray U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Kelly Bronowicz Federal Emergency Management Agency

Kristin Gilroy U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Elaine Kelley Federal Emergency Management Agency

Scott Nicholson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Judy Soutiere U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Laura Zepp U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Logistical Support

Tim O’Neill Diana Hallman Patricia Blanchard La Rue Forrester Web and Writing Solutions Company

42

APPENDIX 3

International Approaches to Flood Risk Management: Governance Comparisons Representatives from several countries were asked to prepare papers related to the issue of flood management governance in advance of the International Flood Risk Management Approaches conference held in Washington, DC in November, 2010. These individuals, comprised of knowledgeable government officials, were posed with several questions aimed at advancing the international dialogue on flood risk management. The submitted narratives focused on the various flood management practices and policies within their respective countries, and were designed to spur discussion during a plenary panel at the U.S. event. This paper serves as a synthesis of those narratives and is an attempt to compare and contrast international experiences and highlight our shared challenges. The nine nations that responded to the questionnaire included:

Belgium,

Germany,

Japan,

The Netherlands,

The Philippines,

Spain,

Switzerland,

The United Kingdom, and

The United States.

THE SHARED FLOOD THREAT Each of the countries that responded to the survey faces its own mix of threats from extreme floods. Some are situated in exposed delta regions that are vulnerable to the combined threat of coastal storms and riverine floods, while others are prone to flash flooding caused by localized mountainous river valleys. The larger countries face a wide variety of flood threats in terms of duration, frequency and magnitude. In some cases, the flooding is expected to regularly recur with varying levels of intensity, while in others the threat may appear remote while potentially devastating. As a result, the impacts are also wide ranging – from extensive disruption to urban areas to crippling economic losses and loss of lives. The process of increased urbanization within flood‐prone areas, combined with the uncertainties associated with climate change, further accentuate the need for countries to seek new and innovative means to mitigate their own particular flood risks. It also signals the need to establish an on‐going international dialogue in order to continually refine and improve adjustments to the varying flood risks the global community faces as a whole. GENERAL ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FLOOD RISK Each of the participating countries has made significant strides in minimizing their respective flood risks in recent years. This has evolved with each country stressing certain aspects of the hazards cycle, which encompasses the phases of flood response, preparation, mitigation, recovery and prevention. Flood response relates to the time interval surrounding a peak crisis event. Flood preparation involves the steps taken in advance of an actual flood event, such as flood forecasts and warnings. Mitigation relates to the various steps taken to minimize the severity of flooding. Recovery consists of the actions taken to restore social order in the immediate aftermath of a major flood event. And prevention focuses on the structural

43

and non‐structural measures designed to avoid a disaster altogether. Ideally, attention is paid to each of the hazards cycle phases, and actions flow seamlessly with each disaster event with the impact of successive floods lessened each time. However, it is cost prohibitive for any one country to stress each of the hazards cycle phases with an equal amount of importance. Therefore, it appears that the various countries in this survey emphasize different phases based upon their own set political, social, economic and infrastructural conditions. What is clear, in other words, is that there is no one ideal approach to flood management that can be applied to all countries with each facing its own peculiar set of hurdles while concurrently attempting to minimize the flood risk. It is clear from the submissions that flood disasters provide the best opportunities for improvements to management practices. The Swiss flood in 1987, for example, caused them to re‐evaluate their flood protection infrastructure and 100 year peak flow standard. The concept of differentiated protection objectives was introduced in the aftermath of that flood, and as such the importance of land use planning and emergency management was recognized as a critical means to reduce the residual risk. The 2005 hurricanes that devastated the Gulf Coast of the US provided a catalyst for that country to re‐evaluate nearly all aspects of how it manages its flood and coastal storm zones, with particular attention paid to its national levee system and, more importantly, its overarching flood risk framework. The scale of this event has significantly influenced flood risk management policy abroad, as evidenced in both Japan and the Netherlands. VARIED EXPERIENCES Responsible Organizations: In most of the countries involved in the survey, the development and implementation of flood management involves a range of authorities on the national (or federal) level, the regional (or state/Lander/cantonal/basin‐wide organizations) level and the local (municipalities, water boards). The relevant policy sectors involved relate to land use planning, water resources management and emergency services). In some cases the lines of authority are fairly centralized or vertical in structure. Roles and responsibilities for most aspects of flood management are clearly defined and understood. In other instances, however, those roles are more blurred with more decentralized lines of authority. That is generally true in the case of the US where the states assume the burden of responsibility unless a national disaster declaration is declared. The federal sector plays more of a support role by providing critical data and issuing forecasts and warnings. The European Union’s Flood Directive requires Flood Risk Management Planning (FRMP) on the catchment (basin‐level) scale. Depending on the size of the catchment area this might require rigorous coordination efforts between various authorities on the local, regional, national and international level. In many instances, international river basin commissions are playing increased roles in this regard. Policies and Legislative Frameworks: The concept of a national legislative framework dedicated to flood management is fairly new to the study respondents. Some of the countries, notably Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK, either have or are working towards a national level integrative flood management policy. These various policies largely act as a framework to guide regional and local involvement. In the US, the National Response Framework serves a similar purpose but is not restricted to flood events but encompasses all natural and human‐origin hazard types.

44

Structural and Non‐Structural Measures: There is a wide range of structural and non‐structural based solutions that the various countries employ for their own particular brand of flood management. Responses to the survey suggest that the countries are moving towards more integrative practices that recognize the importance of a coherent set of flood risk management measures. The EU Floods Directive (2007) advocates a comprehensive approach, consisting of preventive and protective measures, in combination with preparedness and an adequate response. At the national level, Japan appears to have devised the most balanced approach by stressing the importance of protective measures combined with alternate solutions, such as evacuation planning and land use management policies. The Netherlands has a rich history of relying primarily on structural solutions to managing the various risks posed by floods and coastal storms, as evidenced by its vast Delta Works network. However, in recent years that nation has recognized the importance of a broad floodplain strategy, which is exemplified in its Room for the Rivers program, in combination with spatial planning and disaster management. For the most part, however, the responsibility for land use planning continues to reside at the local governmental level. The use of insurance as a flood mitigation tool is a clear work in progress. In the US, UK and Switzerland, the insurance industry plays a critical role in reducing the flood risk. In the case of the US, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The 100‐year flood standard, which is generally recognized on a global scale, has its roots in the NFIP program. Coordination: Coordination among flood authorities is an important aspect of effective flood management, particularly during the response phase and within trans‐boundary settings. There are several examples of international river basin commissions, such as the international commissions for the Meuse, Rhine and Danube in Europe, Mekong in Asia and the International Joint Commission in North America. At the national level, the following are examples of coordinative structures:

‐ The Flemish Coordination Committee on Integrated Water (CIW) is the authority for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive and Floods Directive in Flanders, Belgium. Within CIW all water managers – including groundwater, drinking water and waste water management – are represented, as well as representatives of the provinces, municipalities, polders and regional entities responsible for adjacent policy fields, such as land use planning, environmental protection and agriculture.

‐ The Spanish National Water Council under which all water management interests are represented. ‐ The Swiss (extra parliamentary) national platform for natural hazards (PLANAT), which consists of 20

specialists who represent the Federal State, cantons, research field, professional associations and the private sector (including insurers). At the federal level, the Steering Committee Intervention Against Natural Hazards (LAINAT) coordinates federal agencies relevant for warning and alert systems, crisis management and emergency services.

‐ In the United States, the current decentralized approach is improved by the following initiatives: o National Flood Risk Management Program (NFRMP, 2006): integrating and synchronizing the

US Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE’s) flood risk management programs and activities with related activities within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), other federal agencies, state organizations and regional and local authorities.

o Intergovernmental Flood Risk Management Committee (IFRMC, 2006): quarterly meeting of USACE and FEMA leaders to coordinate policies and thus improve program implementation within the flood risk community. IFRMC also provides an opportunity for key stakeholder groups outside the federal sector , such as the Association of State Floodplain Managers

45

(ASFPM), the National Association of Storm and Floodwater Management Agencies (NASFMA), and the Association of State Dam Officials (ASDSO), to provide direct feedback on specific policy and implementation issues.

o Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force (FIFM‐TF, 2010): updating and maintaining a Unified National Program for Floodplain Management; coordinating federal policies, within both USACE and FEMA in particular.

o Silver Jackets: interagency and intergovernmental collaboration at the state level; consists of interagency teams that develop and implement solutions related to natural hazard priorities through data sharing, model development and existing studies.

Stakeholder Involvement: Stakeholder involvement improves the quality of the policy and related measures and increases the awareness and acceptance of policy implementation. The European Flood Directive prescribes stakeholder participation through the elaboration of FRMPs, as follows:

‐ In the Walloon Water Consultative Committee (CCE) stakeholders are represented from regional water management, including groundwater, drinking water and wastewater management. Stakeholders include representatives from industry, agriculture, fisheries, consumers and local municipalities.

‐ In Germany, the preparation of FRMPs calls for active inter‐sectoral participation and are subject to strategic environmental assessments.

‐ In UK, official authorities involve the National Flood Forum, which is a charity organization that provides support and advice to communities and individuals that have been flooded or are at particular risk of flooding.

Within the United States, IFRMC provides an opportunity for key stakeholder groups representing the non‐federal perspective to provide direct feedback on specific policy and implementation issues. KEY CHALLENGES Each country faces its own peculiar set of challenges, and are summarized as follows: Belgium

Active involvement of local water managers and other authorities due to lack of specialized staff

Public participation on the higher planning levels since individuals are mainly interested in their own particular region (e.g., advisory boards including stakeholder organizations)

Germany

The harmonization of methods on flood risk assessment and measure evaluation is difficult due to a long history of responsibilities and large differences in local conditions.

Federal Environment Ministry role is that of coordinator with funds coming from different national ministries, as well as the EU.

Japan

How to improve evacuation rates, particularly for the elderly and more vulnerable

How to prevent spreading chemicals due to flooding

46

Insurance? The Netherlands

Not enough attention has been paid to emergency management policies and procedures

Public involvement in the decision making process and breaking the bonds of dependency Philippines

Flood forecast and warning system needs to be improved

Overlap and redundancy of responsible flood management organizations Spain

Collaboration between all levels of administration

Restrictions on urban land use in flood zones

Implementation of river restoration projects that also reduce the flood risk

Cost benefit analyses in adoption of structural measures

Take into account the effects of climate change Switzerland

Differentiate in level of protection according to the importance and value of structures and estates to be protected, and adopt land use planning and disaster management to reduce residual risk

Develop legal basis to delta and pluvial and urban flooding United Kingdom

Funding has been effectively rationed so that only a limited number of communities benefit. Climate and other changes will increase pressure – new approaches to funding have to be explored

United States

Improve coordination and cooperation between different authorities involved in FRM on different levels

Advance basin‐level planning and coordination INTEGRATED FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT The concept of Integrated Flood Risk Management (IFRM) suggests that the hazard cycle, as previously described, is adopted as a central concept. It can be viewed as a subset of Integrated Water Resources Management, which recognizes the importance of balancing economic, social and environmental needs. IFRM similarly aspires to act in seamless ways between the hazard/disaster phases, with incremental improvements demonstrated in the aftermath of each flood event through improved practices and shared experiences. IFRM also recognizes the interconnection of flood management and water resources management in a broader perspective, including recognizing the beneficial aspects of flood events. An IFRM framework was introduced at the Third International Symposium on Flood Defence at Nijgmegen, the Netherlands, in 2005. The figure below illustrates the various aspects of IFRM that were presented at that event. It can be viewed as a blueprint for assessing the flood management environment for any given situation by highlighting the flood threat itself, along with the associated practices and policies that drive flood management for any one particular area. This schema is also particularly well suited for advancing

47

trans‐boundary cooperation and for situations involving basin‐level planning where cooperation between disparate parties is imperative. It should be noted at this time that there is no one size fits all solution. For a number of reasons, each country is striving to embrace its own particular brand of IFRM. Further international collaboration is needed to improve upon existing best practices and possibly devise new methodologies and related policies into the broad mix of management solutions.

Integrated Flood Risk Management Framework (Introduced at the Third International Symposium on Flood Defence, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, 2005) This governance comparison was prepared by Jos Van Alphen, Staff of the Delta Program Commissioner in the Netherlands, and Paul Bourget, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Institute for Water Resources.

synthesis of 2010 int'l flood risk management discussions · this report provides a synthesis...

Documents