WG F and STAR-FLOOD Objectives, Measures and Prioritisation Workshop

1. WG F and STAR-FLOOD Objectives, Measures and Prioritisation Workshop By Dries Hegger and Marlous van Herten, Utrecht University, Thursday 17 October 2013

2. A joint one-day workshop on Objectives, Measures and Prioritisation Shared interest of STAR-FLOOD and WG-F in identifyingsimilarities and differencesregarding OMP Exchange of best practices & identifyingknowledgeneeds of MSs Input from questionnaires by 16 parties (13 in analysis) Programme: Overview of questionnaire responses Presentations on Objectives, Measures and Prioritisationby 4 MSs & ICPR; presentation on STAR-FLOOD project Discussion in breakoutgroupsfollowedbyplenary feedback

3. Survey results: OMP processes are linkedwithincountries and differbetweencountries Objectives – mostly defined at national level and applied at several different levels. And aiming at disaster risk reduction. Different forms of consultation (formal vs. Informal). Sometimes linked to approval FRMPs; Measures – defined at national and regional levels and applied at several different levels. Foreseen to comprise all risk management steps (cycle); Prioritisation – defined at national and regional levels and applied at same levels; Knowledge needs – mainly consequences of climate change; exchange of good practices; knowledge on demographic/economic developments.

4. Objectives: presentations Examplefrom Scotland (Roy Richardson) Coordinated approach from SEPA, localauthorities and Scottish water Four types of objectivesthatshouldbe SMART: avoidincreasing flood risk; protecttoreducelikelihood of flooding; preparetoreduce impacts of flooding; accept all or part of flood risk Measures are implementation of objectives, prioritised with aneye on fundingscheme in Scotland ExamplefromFlanders (Sven Verbeke) Twosupporting studies carried out Useful criteria and applicable risk matrix for derivingobjectives; generalobjectives at riverbasin level, more specific for subcatchment level Reducingrisks, usingseveral strategies thatshouldbecost-effective

5. Objectives: many differences… …Levels of abstraction (high vs. veryspecific) …Foci (processin NL vs. substantive targets in IR) …Ways in which WFD and FD are linked …defined at strategic level (principles); operational level (avoid new risks) Difference with measuressometimes hard to draw (e.g. involve the public)

6. Measures: presentations Examplefrom Ireland (Mark Adamson): new approach to flood risksaddressing risk to People, Environment, Cultural Heritage and the economy Drivers: national policy review, pilot studies, implementation of Floods Directive (e.g. article 7 on objectives, measures, prioritisation) 18 objectives are weighed Measures are specificmeasurable actions for which minimum requirements and aspirational targets shouldbe set Prioritisationdoneboth at national/regional level, using e.g. MCA Benefit-cost ratio

7. Differences in how measures are defined and selected Level of detail in which they are determined (catalogue vs. prescription); Much power (decision making/consultation) at local level; FD seems to fuel debates on new measures (agenda setting) but may also lead to conservative phrasing of objectives and measures (unclarity about compliance check by EC); Shift in debates on FRMSs not mirrored by shift in resources (e.g. away from flood protection).

8. Prioritisation presentations Examplefrom Austria (Clemens Neuhold): Massnamenkatalog 4 objectives and 22 measuresdenominated Procedure for prioritising (I, II, III) in progress – catalogue of questions on hazard, expectedlosses, attributesand feasibilitytobeanswered with yes/no. Examplefrom ICPR (Adrian Schmidt-Breton) FRMP for the Rhineunderdevelopment (requirementto exchange information, coordinate and avoidnegative transboundary effects) GIS instrument for assessing flood risks and effectos of measures in preparation (expectedtobeavailable end 2014)

9. Presentation breakout Several methods used, e.g. MCA, GIS instrument in development to see effects of measures for damage reduction (ICPR); Prioritisation is not a technocratic exercise, decisions are made in the political process; Sometimes priorities set for different aspects e.g. flood forecasting; Framing in terms of costs/benefits; Transboundary issues taken into account (e.g. Maaswerken in The Netherlands; border river in Ireland; ICPR is there because it benefits all).

10. Knowledge needs Consequences of climate change; Democraphic/economic development; Exchange of good practices; Ways to show benefits of FRM measures to other domains (development is hard to control in a democratic society); Ways to show who bears the costs and who reaps the benefits of FRM measures; Knowledge infrastructure; Decision support tools.

11. Main conclusions Links between OMP within countries, large differences between countries; some have progressed more than others Some evidence that Floods Directive has both a positive and a negative influence on which objectives and measures are selected and how ambitiously they are formulated; Reasons to look forward to further exchange of good practices and in-depth insights into specific regions (STAR-FLOOD focus)

12. Next steps Joint report by WG-F and STAR-FLOOD on the workshop & implications for the STAR-FLOOD project (to be circulated for comments); Empirical research STAR-FLOOD in 18 case studies; WG-F members in six MS may be consulted for feedback (NL, BE, SV, UK, PL, FR) 2-4 International workshops in 2015 Potential new expert panel with you in 2015?

13. Thank you! Please visit our website: www.starflood.eu Contacts: Peter Driessen: p.driessen@uu.nl Dries Hegger: d.l.t.hegger@uu.nl