Governance for resilient cities: some insights from the STAR-FLOOD project

Dr. Ann Crabbé, University of Antwerp

Prof. Dr. Corinne Larrue, University Paris Est Crétail

About the FP7 project

STAR-FLOOD

Flood risks are real

Need for governance research

Evolution of climate change research over time from 1980s onwards

in European countries (Biesbroek et al. 2010)

Governance research

About STAR-FLOOD

6 countries:

• The Netherlands

• France

• England

• Belgium

• Sweden

• Poland

About STAR-FLOOD

Per country: national study + 3 case studies

Nederlands France England Belgium Sweden Poland

Nijmegen Nevers London Antwerpen Gothenburg Slubice

Zuidplas-

polder

Le Havre Hull Geraards-

bergen

Kristianstad Poznan

Rijnmond Nice Leeds Lessen Karlstad Wroclaw

About STAR-FLOOD

Legals scholars

and political

scientists work

together!

Some important findings of

STAR-FLOOD until now

We are facing a diversification of strategies

for flood risk strategies in practice,

strenghtened by other evolutions, new

discourses etc.

Classic : investments in ‘flood defence’

A matter of fact: evolution towardscombination with other strategies

Trends, discourses… supporting this evolution

⇒ reduced reliance on engineered solutions (Netherlands,

UK).

⇒Reduced budget for defense policy (all countries)

⇒ Impact of Flood Directive: incentive for implementing

comprehensive/integrated local strategies (all countries)

⇒ Important shock events (PL)

⇒Perspective of climate changes (increasing adaptive

capacity (Sweden)

Illustration for France

The decentralisation process has visible consequences

with regard to diversification of strategies:

• Transfer of infrastructure management from State to

local authorities

• Empowerment of the intercommunal organisations, cf.

presentation Fournier/Gralepois

• Introduction of specific tools (PCS/DICRIM) enforces

municipalities’ role in flood preparation

• Incentive through a global framework (PAPI)

Illustration for Flanders (Belgium)

The discourse on multi-level water safety broadens the

scope from flood protection towards prevention and

preparedness

• MLWS: a discourse used by water managers to appeal

to spatial planning (prevention) and other actors (civil

protection, fire brigades, insurance sector)

• Cost-benefit analysis to identify the most cost-efficient

approach for each watercourse: collective protection

versus other measures

There is a growing need for tailor made

policies at the local scale.

Generic policies, developed by central governments,

have their limits:

• Because of decreasing resources (financial,

personnel…) stimulating decentralisation of

responsibilities

• Because ‘one solution that fits all’ often does not

work, particularly in countries as Belgium with its

historic problems with spatial planning

We see a call for more tailor made solutions at the local

scale:

• Need for coordination platforms, bringing together the

big number of governmental authorities (in Belgium)

and other actors involved, eg. CIW, GTI, basin

committees, river contracts etc.

• Particular need for experimenting with innovative

instruments that help to resolve spatial planning

problems

Bottlenecks

• Still strong coordination ambitions from the central

governments – preference for ‘uniform’ policy

implementation

• Tricky combination of flood risk management and

economic development ambitions of local

governments

• Lack of knowledge, human resources, financial

means and time with local governments to coordinate

experiments

Public authorities will no longer be the only

responsible for flood risk management:

responsibilities are shifting more and more

towards private actors.

Traditionally flood management is a highly technocratic

issue, almost exclusively carried out by government

authorities.

Recent trend towards distribution of responsibilities

between govennmental and non-governmental actors.

Illustrations from Belgium

• Private insurance companies have an important role

in flood recovery: flood risks are part of the fire

insurance of house owners/tenants

• The duty to inform potential buyers of property in flood

prone areas

• The multi-level water safety discourse introduces the

idea that the government will cease to provide

collective protection in all cases; indidivuals will need

to take action themselves

Illustrations from France

• The willingness/discourses to develop “risk

consciousness” within population

• The duty to inform potential buyers of property in flood

prone areas

• Local inhabitants involvement in case of flood

(réserve communale de sauvegarde)

• Public participation as a way to responsabilise target

groups

Some concluding remarks

• Flood Risk management is more and more complex:

do not rely anymore only on defence and preparation

• Multiple actors, multiple instruments, multiple

strategies => more coordination needed

• Climate change perspective : still a long term

perspective, not yet really integrated in local flood risk

management