Silvia BRUZZONE

Views:
 
     
 

Presentation Description

Forum Loire & affluents Au coeur de l'Europe des fleuves 10 décembre 2014 Echange d’expériences et transfert de savoir-faire en matière de coopération sur la gestion intégrée des bassins fluviaux. Silvia BRUZZONE STAR FLOOD STrengthening And Rede-signing European FLOD risk practices : Towards appropriate and resilient flood riks governance arrangements

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Strengthening and redesigning European FLOOD risk practices :

Strengthening and redesigning European FLOOD risk practices Silvia Bruzzone, Tours University Silvia.bruzzone@univ-tours.fr Forum Loire et affluents, Orleans 10.12.14 Headlines and first results.

The Starflood project:

The Starflood project EU 7th Framework Project STAR-FLOOD: STrengthening And Redesigning European FLOOD risk practices: Towards appropriate and resilient flood risk governance arrangements (2012-2016) ( www.starflood.eu ) Coordinator : Prof. Dr. Peter P. J. Driessen (Utrecht University) 6 countries: UK, F, NL, B, S, P 8 partners: public research centres, social scientists and legal fellows; 2 partners for dissemination activities

STARFLOOD Partners:

STARFLOOD Partners Partners Countries Universiteit Utrecht The Netherlands Stichting Katholieke Universiteit The Netherlands Middlesex University Higher Education Corporation United Kingdom Universiteit Antwerpen Belgium Katholieke Universiteit Leuven , KUL Belgium Lulea Tekniska Universitet , LUT Sweden Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Science Poland Université de Tours / Université Paris Est Créteil France CEPRI (Centre Européen de prévention de Risque d'Inondation) France Grontmij Nederland, Gront The Netherlands

18 Urban regions investigated :

18 Urban regions investigated

Main research question :

Main research question “ What are appropriate Flood Risk Governance Arrangements (FRGAs) for dealing with flood risks in vulnerable urban agglomerations in Europe ?”

STAR-FLOOD: an EU FP7 project on flood risk governance:

STAR-FLOOD: an EU FP7 project on flood risk governance -Background: increasing flood risks due to urbanisation and the effects of climate change -Hypothesis: urban areas will be more resilient if several Flood Risk Management Strategies are combined and integrated

A Policy Arrangement Approach:

A Policy Arrangement Approach => We assume that the five Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMS) are developed, institutionally embedded and put into practice by different Flood Risk Governance Arrangements (FRGAs). Policy arrangement = the result of a dynamic interplay between: Actors Discourses Rules Resources

Two levels of analysis:

Two levels of analysis National Flood Policies and Regulations domain : Level of flood governance incorporating policies connected to the five Flood Risk Strategies (Prevention, Defence, Mitigation, Preparation, Recovery) and Case study Level: The five Flood Risk Strategies and governance in urban agglomeration

Research operational objectives:

Research operational objectives Identifying which FRSs are applied in different urban agglomerations in EU member states Analyzing the emergence of current FRGAs in different urban agglomerations in EU Member States by studying stability and dynamics in these arrangements in at least the past two decades; Explaining stability and dynamics in these FRGAs by identifying explanatory factors and determining the relative importance of each of them Evaluating the extent to which these FRGAs are resilient (i.e. manage to develop, implement and align different FRSs) and appropriate (i.e. legitimate, efficient and effective) and distinguishing good practices for flood risk Elaboration of design principles for FRGA in EU

Where are we now?:

Where are we now?

Preliminary findings at EU level:

Preliminary findings at EU level

Main factors framing Flood Risk Management in each country:

Main factors framing Flood Risk Management in each country A free-standing problem (as in the Floods Directive); A water management problem (e.g. the IWRM framing) One of several hazards, often specifically natural hazards (which might be argued to be the traditional French approach); A problem in terms of adaptation to climate change Flood issues can be seen as an ‘environmental’ problem, a ‘ safety ’ problem or otherwise . Countries seem to differ in terms of solutions: =>to maximise safety by increasing protection levels =>to detect and minimise vulnerabilities

Main trends in Flood risk management in the six countries :

Main trends in Flood risk management in the six countries Flood risks can no longer be dealt with by focusing solely on flood defences (building dikes, dams, embankments etc.) Actors at various levels (international, European, national as well as regional) wish for and make efforts at a diversification of Flood Risk Managemen t Strategies: multiple strategies are applied simultaneously and linked together. These strategies include pro-active spatial planning (building permits), flood mitigation in various ways (e.g. urban green infrastructures, adaptive buildings), flood preparation and flood recovery

Debates on intervention strategies: Two types of approaches (1) :

Debates on intervention strategies: Two types of approaches (1) France, UK, The Netherlands and Belgium : => shift towards flood risk management and away from flood defence reduced reliance on engineered solutions (Netherlands, UK). However, to what extent we can really speak of a shift in practice ?

Debates on intervention strategies: Two types of approaches (2) :

Debates on intervention strategies: Two types of approaches (2) Poland and Sweden : =>Societal discussion on floods seems to be virtually absent in Sweden, =>the debate in Poland – due to the occurrence of recent devastating floods – seems to be held entirely in terms of flood protection and water safety.

Rules of the game: Two main principles :

Rules of the game: Two main principles The solidarity principle : the principle that society as a whole should cover certain flood-related costs. The private interest principle : costs should be carried by those who encounter most risk or benefit most from FRM measures => all the six countries are located in a continuum between these two end points, but in none of the countries there is a one-sided focus on only one of these end points France seems to attach much importance to the solidarity principle vs England is the most inclined to emphasise the private interest principle

The French case: first key findings:

The French case: first key findings

PowerPoint Presentation:

Prevention Recovery Defence Flood Domain Crisis Management Mitigation Strong political and social legitimacy (through planning) and pillar of an integrated approach Solidarity as unquestioned constitutional principle Original public-private coop. Dominant strategy in terms of public investments BUT not as a discourse Independent, State domain Citizens ’ rising role Multi-risk The most heterogeneous, innovative and bottom-up

PowerPoint Presentation:

Prevention Recovery Defence Flood Domain Crisis Management Mitigation Bridging strategy

Some conclusive remarks:

Some conclusive remarks Multiple Explanatory factors Physical events National political factors (Budget reduction, decentralization) Flood Directive Some good principles (more than practice) PAPI as exemplary design principle? Cat-Nat as double sided measure (good recovery measure but bad prevention approach)

Thank you!:

Thank you!

authorStream Live Help