Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Multi-level coordination challenges in
implementing a diversified set of FRM strategiesSession 7
Brussels Carel Dieperink
5 February 2016 Tom Raadgever
Jana Steenbergen
Programme of the session8:30-8:40 Introduction to the session by Carel Dieperink
8:40-9:05 Case 1 Nice with Sylvia Gahlin,
9:05-9:30 Case 2 Dordrecht with Ellen Kelder
9:30-9:40 Tips and Tops
9:40- 10:00 Coffee break
10:00-10:25 Case 3 Geraardsbergen with Lisbet van de Casteele
10:25-10:50 Case 4 Wroclaw with Borys Bednarek
10:50-11:00 Tips and Tops
11:00- 11:15 Conclusions
Introduction into Multi-level coordination
challenges in implementing FRM strategiesSession 7
Brussels Carel Dieperink
5 February 2016
Enhancing urban flood resilience
• A diversification of Flood Risk Management Strategies
(urbanisation/climate change) may be necessary;
• Prominent policy initiatives (e.g. Hyogo framework, EU
Floods Directive)
• Urban level is key… but not in isolation
Aim of the session
• Reflect on the challenges related to enhancing urban
flood resilience and the ways they are addressed
• Discursive challenges
• Actor related challenges
• Rules and resources related challenges
• Provide input for a Starflood Practitioners guide
Intensification of flood defence
(dikes, dams, embankments)
• Ensure socially accepted starting point is chosen
• Clarify financial responsibilities
• Deal with impacts on property rights
Intensification of flood retention
(buffers)
• Find suitable areas
• Produce convincing arguments for prioritization
• Find compatible land-use functions
• Develop compensation schemes
• Be transparent in decision making
Intensification of flood risk
prevention (spatial planning)
• Produce convincing arguments for prioritization
• Improve cooperation between water managers and
spatial planners
• Build bridges between centralized and interactive
governance
• Integrate fragmented rule systems
• Use new resources (like floodmaps)
• Establish learning and action alliances
Intensification of flood mitigation
(adaptative building)
• Clarify responsibilities of public and private actors
• Stimulate individuals to take measures themselves (no
parquet)
• Adjust building codes
• Stimulate self governance (e.g.
Flutschutzgemeinschaften)
• Influence willingness to pay to take measures
• Introduce mitigation measures in early stages of
physical planning
• Promote innovative and attractive aspects in city
marketing
Intensification of flood
preparation (warning systems,
evacuation plans)
• Increase overall warning system effectiveness
• Increase risk awareness
• Motivate residents to prepare for floods
• Use social media to spread locally relevant knowledge
• Clarify responsibilities in a national disaster law
• Find feasible and effective evacuation options
• Incorporate these options in physical planning
Intensification of flood recovery
(rebuilding and insurance)
• Clarify responsibilities
• Make normative choices about risk to be covered by
public and private finances
• Raise risk awareness
• Combine flood risks with others in a single insurance
policy
• Stimulate mobilisation of resources for emergency
funds
Required multilevel coordination
mechanisms
• Challenges overlap
• Development of area specific mixes of FRMSs
• Coordination between areas
• Bridging concepts are needed
• Policy entrepreneurs showing leadership
• Clear division of tasks and responsibilities
• Resources (knowledge and money)
Enhancing urban flood resilience
in 4 practices
Case 1 NiceSession 7
Brussels Sylvia Gahlin
5 February 2016
STARFLOOD CONFERENCE« FLOOD GOVERNANCE »Brussels4-5 FEBRUARY 2016
.
DIRECTION DE LA PREVENTION ET DE LA GESTION DES RISQUES
SUMMARY
I. The risk of the territory of Nice?
II. A global risk management strategy to improve
the resilience of the territory
III. Focus on flood risk: 3 coastal rivers
3 ways/level of governance different
management.
V. Conclusion/ future projects
• Between sea and mountains, in the extreme South-East of France.•Territory of 7200 ha of which 2/3 hilly forests and 1/3 valley area•5th French city with 350.000 inhabitants .• A territory with strong economic and a veritable touristic crossing point (4 million visitorsin Nice of which 52% foreigners, 2th biggest airport in France (10 million travelers a year)).
A highly exposed
territory
5 natural risks:
Flooding
Forest fires
Earthquake
Landslides
Meteorological events
(submersive waves,
strong winds, snow,
pluvial flooding,
extreme cold,
heatwaves)
I. The risk for the territory of Nice
Var river floods November
1994
Forest fire in Cagnes-sur-Mer
in august 2003.
Submersive waves in November
2000, May 2010 and in November
2011.
Earthquake on the 23th of February
1887 in Imperia in Italie
I. The risk in the territory of Nice
SUBMARINE LANDSLIDES AT RAZ DE MAREE
(SMALL TSUNAMI) 1979
FLUVIAL
FLOODING
VAR RIVER
1994
FLUVIAL FLOODING
PAILLON
1940 / 1979 / 1999 / 2000
SUBMERSIVE WAVES
1949 / 1959 /2010
FLASHFLOODS
1999
2000
2005
2008
2010
ACCIDENT TMD A8
1991 / 2010
FOREST FIRE
CAGNES/MER
2003
FLUVIAL FLOODING
MAGNAN
1981
1999
2000
2005
SNOWFALL
1985/2005/2010
The mayor risks presented
DPGR – 29-01-2016
EARTHQUAKES
1887
1989
1995
2001
II. A global risk management strategy to
improve the resilience of the territory
Ring of resilience
1Creation of the
RiskManagement Department
2Intregrated
riskmanagement in urban planning
3Preventiveworks (on the cliffs)
4Development of
a local riskculture
5Development of
new tools for forecasting and
warning
6Preparation of
crisismanagement and recovery
strategy
Protect
Care
Repair
Medicate
Emergency
evacuation
Emergency services City and metropolitan - wide
RESCUE
InformAlert
EvacuateProhibitSupport
Assist
SAVE
Protection of the population
II.1. A specialized department:
II.1.1 Special security power of the mayor
EVENT
SECURITY
COMMAND
POST
24/7
DEPARTMENT
OF RISK
MANAGEMENT
MUNICIPAL
CONCERNS
TEAM
ANALYSI
S
MINOR
EVENTS
METEOROLO-
GICAL OR
IMPORTANT
EVENT
SURVEILLA
NCE TEAM
Niveau 1
PCS
EMERGENCY
TEAM
Niveau 2 PCS
MAJOR
EVENTS
IF,
AGGRAVATION
DGS / DGACabinet
DGS / DGATeam
II.1.2. Risk Management Emergency Scheme: Niveau 1/Niveau2 2
II.1.3. COMMUNAL EMERGENCY
PLAN (PCS)
USE : General risk management plan, for crisis without state intervention
Supportive plan of state intervention (ORSEC)
THE ORGANISATION: Warning and information
Support of emergency services
Support of the population
THE PREPARATION: Crisis management room (PCC)
Coordination of action of municipal services
Inventory of resources
Maire1er adjoint ou élu
Cabinet DGSDGA PSVQ
Communication – Press representatives
Responsable PCC
Directeur DPGR Chef service DPGR
Animation Coordination
Secrétariat / Reporting(1 agent DPGR)
Cartographie SIG / Suivi
forecasting / situation points /
Monitoring network(1 agent DPGR)
Police Municipale(2 agents)
DGA DDE / DGA RCS(1 agent) (1 agent)
SDIS(1 officier)
Emergency Services(Force 06 / Red Cross/ etc.)
Décision
Communication
Interventions
Animation
Coordination
II.1.4. Crisis room (PCC)
Niveau 1Surveillance mode : Organisation scheme PCC
Mayor1er politicians
Cabinet DGSDGA PSVQ
Communication – Press representatives
Responsable PCCDirecteur DPGR Chef service DPGR
Animation Coordination
Secrétariat / Reporting(2 agents DPGR)
Cartographie SIG / Suivi
forecasting / situation points /
Monitoring network(2 agent DPGR)
Police municipale(2 agents)
Logistic tecnique assistance(DGA DDE 2 agents, DGA RCS 1 agent)
State emergency service SDIS(1 officier)
External emergency service(Force 06 / Red cross/ etc.)
Décision
Communication
Interventions
Animation
Coordination
Evaluation asset/ Interventions DPGR /
Voluntary resources RCSC(2 agents DPGR)
Crisis operation & call centre(10 agents formés)
Social logistic assistance(Affaires Sociales 1 agent, Education 1 agent,
Sport 1 agent)
Transmissions(DSI 1 agent)
Niveau 2Crisis Mode : Organisation Scheme PCC - CRISE
II.2. Taking risk in consideration in local urban planning (PPR) 5 PPR Natural risk in Nice :
- 1 PPR Flooding of the Paillon approved in 1999
- 1 PPR Forest fire in processin 2013
- 1 PPR underground cavitiesapproved in 2008
- 1 PPR Landslides prescribedin 2010
- 1 PPR Flooding Var River approved in 2011
The Risk management
department (DPGR) advised
about 300 building requests
A- CREATION OF COMMUNAL RESERVES 100 voluntary reservists are recruted and trained to major risk prevention OBJECTIVES :
• Improve resilience and prevention• Developing and contributing to a riskculture• Change/adapt risk perception• Supplement human resources of thecity
B – COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIP WITH ASSOCIATES: Training, exercices, activeparticipation during crisis.
II. 3. Developing a risk culture
at school In the neighbourhood Public meetings
II.3. Developing a risk culture
C – MEANINGS OF COMMUNICATION /NTIC : (brochures, posters, internet, etc.)
D –COMMUNICATION PLAN: Participative education
III.Focus on flood risk: 3 Coastal rivers
3 ways/level of governance different
management
Le VAR
Le MAGNAN Le PAILLON
III. Focus on flood risk: 3 Coastal rivers
3 ways/level of governance different
managementVAR River
Domanial
Propriétaire: l’Etat
MAGNAN River
Non domanial
Propriétaires: publics/privés
PAILLON River
Non domanial
Propriétaires: publics/privés
Governance:
Leader: The state (Le
Préfet)
Partners:
Métropole/communes
Governance:
Leader: the community (The mayor)
Partners: Météo-France, CD 06,
Métropole NCA, Entreprises NTIC,
citoyens
Governance:
Leader: Syndicat intercommunal
des paillons (SIP) compétence RI
limitée
Partners: Métropole NCA
Surveillance/Forecasting/
Warning:
Vigicrue system
Surveillance/Forecasting/
Warning :
Before: No risk management
pour 2017: Project DiSAPRI-Med to
create a platform to measure and create
a platform of all risk in the metropolitan
area
Surveillance/Forecasting/
Warning:
Flood Measuring systems (SAC)
Managed by the metropolitan only
for the road-tunnel
2014 : surveillance /joint
management +improvement of the
SAC and extend it to the residents
Conventional framework of
joint risk management:
PAPI VAR I (2009)
PAPI VARII (2014)
Conventional framework of joint risk
management:
Conventional partnership R&D
public/private between
Métropole/Ville/private actors
Conventional framework of joint risk
management:
PAPI PAILLON (2013-2019)
transposant Directive 2007/60/CE
et associant l’Etat (préfets CR+D),
le CD 06, la Métropole, la Ville de
Nice.
Projects and experiments under development
CONCLUSION : The projects
PROJECTS ON THE
WAY
Hypervisivenatural risk
management project
Intelligent Camera
Experiment and modelling of the Magnan River
Territorial civil security in communal reservists
Communication to the population with tele-alerts
Communication to population of
PPR
Mission about advising of the communities in the Metropolitan
Direction de la Prévention et de la Gestion des Risques2, rue Gustave DELOYE
06364 Nice cedex 4FRANCE
Website : http://nice.fr/Securite-prevention@ : [email protected]: +334 97 13 2326Fax : +334 97 13 29 93Facebook : Nice DPGR Twitter: #Nice VOST
En vous remerciant de votre aimable attention
Nice: statements and discussion
Overlap in authorities between different levels of policy making is necessary for
enhancing urban flood resilience.
Urban flood resilience can only be achieved if all levels of policy making cooperate in
project organizations.
Urban flood resilience can only be improved if measures are framed in terms of urban
development and innovation.
The development of a more diverse set of flood risk management strategies asks for
central steering.
Case 2 DordrechtSession 7
Brussels Ellen Kelder
5 February 2016
Dordrecht- geographic position
Influence from the sea and the river
The Worst Possible Flooding
• Securing water safety through
the prevention of primary
defences.
• Spatial planning of the
regional flood defense
remains the same
• Evacuation aimed at leaving
the area (preventive
evacuation )
The Reference Strategy
40
Flood risk
prevention
Flood mitigation
Disaster
management
Multi-layered Safety ApproachSelf-Reliant Island of Dordrecht
WPF
Total cost
(mln €)Reference
Self-Reliant
Island
CV of the
damage risk153 112
Investment in
primairy defence59 28
Investment in
regional defences2,9 17,3
Investment in
evacuation0 20
Total costs Ca. 215 Ca. 180
Strategy Self-Reliant Island of Dordrecht A better alternative
Financing
Securing in a legal
arrangement
The Strategy Self-Reliant Island remains to be based on prevention
with dikes (layer 1).
But unlike the Reference strategy it also aims to reduce the impact
of a flooding through measures in the spatial planning ( layer 2 )
and disaster management ( layer 3).
Challenge
Characteristic of the Self-Reliant
Island of Dordrecht
1. Norming the regional dikes (Province, Waterboard en National Auhority).
2. Changing the norms for the primary defence (National Authority)
MLS FRM strategies / who’s
responsible for what?
Policymaking Policy
implementation
Flood prevention NA WB
Flood mitigation NA, P, M (WB) (WB), P, M
Disaster
management
NA, SR, M, WB NA, P, SR, WB, M
NA = National Authority
P = Province
SR = Safety region
WB = Waterboard
M = Municipality
2005 - 2008 Urban Flood Management project
2009 – 2012 MARE-project
2013 – 2015 CAMINO
2014 start of the feasibility study of the Multi Layer
Safety approach on the Island of Dordrecht.
2016 start of the second stage of the feasibility study:
operationalisation of the Strategy Self-reliant Island of
Dordrecht
???
Delta Programma
2009 - 2014
Re
se
arc
h
En
viro
nm
en
t
Development of FRM MLS Strategy
Po
licy fe
as
ibilty
Stu
dy
Lliv
ing
La
b
Public
1 City of Dordrecht
2 Waterboard Hollandse Delta
3 Province South Holland
4 Safety Region South Holland South
5 Rijkswaterstaat South Holland
6 National Authority (Ministry of I&E)
Acadamic
1 UNESCO-IHE
2 Deltares
3 TU Delft
4. Erasmus University
Rotterdam
A Learning and Action Alliance (LA) is a group of individuals or organisations with a shared interest in innovation and the scaling-up of innovation, in a topic of mutual interest.
.
Learning and Action Alliance
Dordrecht
Challenges
1. How can we, the LAA, take this further in all our organisations?
2. How can we work on trust between the governors of our
organisations?
Dordrecht: statements and
discussion
Urban areas must develop their own strategic visions to stimulate debates on enhancing
urban flood resilience.
A more diverse set of flood risk management strategies can only be implemented if
municipalities take the lead.
Municipalities have only limited options to improve the resilience of their urban areas.
Pilot projects on enhancing urban flood resilience can bridge different levels of policy
making
Higher levels of policy making will only learn from pilot projects if the results of these
projects can be mainstreamed in the dominant national policy discourses.
Coffee breakSession 7
Case 3 GeraardsbergenSession 7
Brussels Liesbet van de Casteele
5 February 2016
geographic position
flood prone areas
flood prone areas
flood prone areas
key players in FRM
key players in FRM
CIW
Flanders
City Geraardsbergen
Province EasternFlanders
VMM
W&Z
LV
ANB
RO
Wallonia Dender basin
D
e
n
d
e
r
Regional projects
ke
y p
layers
in
FR
M
FRM strategies
Preparation
Protection
Prevention
FR
M s
tra
teg
ies
Prevention
Protection
FR
M s
tra
teg
ies
FR
M s
tra
teg
ies Preparation
challenges
1. Real integrated management: further
cooperation between water managers
• protective measures
• deadlock in decision-making (e.g. Renovation of sluice
complex, dikes, …)
• adaptation resilience (Creating space/infiltration
for water at local scale, …)
• accountability of citizens
• spread knowledge
2. Need for solution in spatial planning
challenges
ch
all
en
ges
spatial planning
ch
all
en
ges
spatial planning – signal areas
ch
all
en
ges
spatial planning – land swap
Thank you for your attention.
Geraardsbergen: statements and
discussion
Urban flood resilience asks for hierarchical spatial planning measures in which the
national level overrules the lower levels of policy making.
Water assessments of spatial planning measures by the water authorities must be key
instruments to coordinate policy developments at multiple levels of flood risk
governance.
The national and regional levels must develop strategic visions to stimulate debates on
enhancing urban flood resilience.
Higher levels of policy making should have the legal instruments to restrict urban areas’
ambitions to build in flood prone areas.
Case 4 WrocławSession 7
Brussels Borys Bednarek
5 February 2016
Wrocław- geographical position
Wrocław
• population – 634 487 inhabitants
• 4th biggest city of Poland
• the highest number of bridges : 150 - 400 pcs.
The city is located in the Odra River Basin, in the Middle Odra water
region. It closes the Odra drainage basin of the area 20 390 km2.
Four major rivers flow into Odra within the boundaries
of Wrocław: Oława, Ślęza, Bystrzyca, Widawa
Wrocław- general description
Wroclaw - threat specification
The total water region is dominated
by A11* fluvial floods – due to their
mechanism, they are classified as
type A21* (natural surge).
Surges in the summer half-year
caused by geographically vast and
persistent rainfall clearly dominate
*As recommended by EC - Draft List of flood types and list of consequences, version 6, Feb 2011
Wroclaw Floodway System
Odra creates a multi-level system of canals and water
facilities in the city of Wrocław
Wroclaw Floodway System
http://informator.wroclaw.rzgw.gov.pl/imap/
WFS - Location
Wroclaw Floodway System
Wroclaw Floodway System consists of the part of
Odra River from 241.5 km to 266.9 km, with its
tributaries and all the hydro-technical facilities used for
navigation and flood protection.
This system was built in the 19th and 20th centuries.
The current shape we see today was formed mainly
after the great flood in 1903.
The floodway system served its purpose without major
incidents in the 30s and in the postwar period
until July 1997 !!!
Wrocław- Flood 1997
2400 m3/s
3640 m3/s
Wroclaw Floodway System was
designed to accommodate a flow of
The maximum flow during the 1997
flood was about
Wrocław – Flood 2010
After 13 years another flood struck Wroclaw, at the turn
of May and June 2010. Although not as large as 1997,
its size is comparable to the flood of 1903, and
constitutes the 3rd largest flood recorded.
The flow was estimated at 2100 m3/s. Thanks to
the proper functioning of all the elements of the existing
Floodway System and efficient and effective actions of
emergency services water did not cause extensive
damage.
Wrocław- Flood 2010
2400 m3/s
2100 m3/s
Wroclaw Floodway System was
designed to accommodate a flow of
The maximum flow during the 2010
flood was about
Wrocław – reconstruction
The construction and modernization of damagedembankments and water facilities started already in autumn1997.
Unfortunately, despite these actions, in case 1997 sizeflooding occurred, Wroclaw wouldn’t be able to defend itself.
In 2001 the government established a program of floodprotection ‘Program Odra 2000.’ Its development is currentlybeing carried out since 2009 within the Mission of the WorldBank – ‘The Odra River Basin Flood Protection Project(ORFPP)’ as Modernization of Wroclaw Floodway Systemand the construction of a dry polder in Racibórz.
Once the projects have been completed, WFS will be able topass safely 3100 m3/s through the area of Wroclaw.
Modernization of Wroclaw Floodway System 2009 - 2017
Wrocław - FRM non-structural measures
every 2 years
• Local Crisis Management Plan
2013
• Brochure for residents –key flood protection facts
annual
• Operational Plan of FloodProtection
Wrocław - FRM challenges
1. Hydrotechnical system operating in a given area is
managed by several subordinate units from completely
different levels of administration.
2. Taking an action on a hydrotechnical object during a flood
requires consultation of several units, which prolongs
the decision-making process.
3. Spatial planning and development process is not clearly
linked to flood risk prevention
Wrocław - FRM challenges
4. Article 81 of Water Law Act – flood protection is
the responsibility of government and local authorities
BUT IT DOES NOT SPECIFY EXACTLY THE SCOPE OF
RESPONSIBILITY
5. The most significant drawback of this system is the fact
that President of Wroclaw is in charge of flood-protection
on embankments and other water facilities
WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL
THEIR TECHNICAL CONDITION
Wrocław- key players in FRM
CITY PRESIDENT
Crisis Management Team
Crisis Management Centre
State Fire
Service
Police Service
Institute of Meteorology
and WaterManagement
RegionalAuthorities for
WaterManagement
Lower SilesianBoard of
Ameliorationand WaterStructures
MunicipalOffice
Police
Water and Sewerage
Infastructureservice
Full cooperation of all the participants
is required for the synergy effect.
Conclusions and recommendations
from the experienced flood incidents
- maintain an appropriate level of flood prevention
infrastructure;
- constant update of OPFP compliance for the city of Wroclaw;
- update of flood risk and flood hazard maps for the city;
- intensification of training and cooperation with Local Flood
Leaders (including residential estate authorities, residents).
Wrocław: statements and
discussion
During a flood event centralization of command is necessary. Regional authorities
should take the lead in evacuation.
Upstream retention measures can only be implemented if higher levels of policy making
develop schemes to compensate the involved farmers and other landowners.
EU should only subsidize flood risk governance initiatives if they explicitly opt for a
more diverse set of flood risk management strategies.
Urban areas that benefit from flood risks management must pay for these themselves.
Conclusions
What is your take home message?
General statements
Multi-level coordination of urban flood resilience will only take place if pro-active policy
entrepreneurs take the lead in this.
Bridging concepts (visions, plans, programs) between different levels of policy making are needed
to coordinate multi-level policies aiming at enhancing urban flood resilience.
Urban flood resilience can only be improved if required activities can be mainstreamed in other
policy initiatives.
All levels of policy making should have clear responsibilities in enhancing urban flood resilience.
Higher levels of policy making have a key role in providing urban flood risk managers with the
knowledge they need.
In order to enhance urban flood resilience the urban level must take the lead in involving higher
levels of policy making.
In order to enhance urban flood resilience the national/regional level must take the lead in involving
the urban level of policy making.
The national/regional level should only take a role in flood defense if protection of larger areas is
at stake.
Adaptive building had has to be addressed at the municipal level. Higher levels of policy making
have no role to play in this kind of flood risk mitigation.
The EU should only prescribe the procedures member states and their different levels of policy
making have to follow in order to enhance urban flood resilience.
Following the subsidiarity principle the EU has no role to play in improving urban flood resilience
since its improvement asks for tailor made measures.
The Floods Directive has no added value for enhancing urban flood resilience in the EU Member
States.
No changes in the Floods Directive are required.
