Newsletter 4 March 2012

Transcription

1 Newsletter 4 March 2012 MiSRaR The MiSRaR project is about exchanging knowledge and experiences in the field of risk management and spatial planning. The project started in the spring of 2010 and so far 13 thematic seminars have been organized by the project partners. MiSRaR is funded by the INTERREG IVC program and seven project partners participate in its activities. The safety region South-Holland South is lead partner in the project. Other partners are the Municipality of Tallinn (Estonia), the region Epirus (Greece), the province of Forli-Cesena (Italy), the municipalities Mirandela and Aveiro (Portugal), and the Euro Perspectives Foundation (Bulgaria). The threeyear project will finish at the end of From instruments to process In 2011, the MiSRaR project shifted its focus to the actual mitigation planning process both in terms of the instruments to be used and the processes that are part of it. Capacity analysis and mitigation instruments were shared in the first half of the year, while the second half focused more specifically on the planning process itself. Various ways of influencing 'real' mitigation plans or establishing connections with existing plan were discussed among the partners, as well as Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), mitigation financing and the efficient use of legislation. The focus on these underlying processes continued in the spring of 2012 with topics such as lobby and advocacy, monitoring, enforcement and evaluation. A cross-cutting aspect we dealt with in all the seminars is the cooperation between private and public partners. A crucial aspect when achieving effective results in the mitigation process. Experiences in this field (and all other subjects) will be published on the website. Epirus: Mitigation planning The 9th thematic seminar took place on the 21 st and 22 nd of September 2011 in Igoumenitsa, Greece. This seminar addressed the mitigation phases from the perspective of multi-layer safety and the position of the mitigation plan in overall risk and crisis management. Furthermore, different kinds of mitigation plans were discussed and successful approaches to mitigation planning such as the RISCEapproach used in Dordrecht, The Netherlands, were presented. The European practices in these fields and the role of local and regional actors in relation to the central government differ to a great extend from each other. In some countries layered planning schemes are centrally determined and decentralized actors have to follow their lead. In other countries bottom-up approaches are more common and Risk assessment: insight in risks is the starting point for mitigation Integral: consideration of all effects and all vulnerabilities Structural: mitigation is a continuous process, which has to be embedded in the relevant organizations Cooperation: all relevant government agencies, civil society, industries and inhabitants need to cooperate Early: risks can be most effectively mitigated if safety is considered in spatial development as early as possible

2 local and regional authorities are sitting more in the driver seat. Also the geographical orientation differs from region to region. Mitigation plans sometimes refer to a particular type of disaster and in other cases more to a given area. What also differs is that the mitigation plan in itself is not always a separate exercise but often part of a more general spatial plan. Important issues raised for the planning process were: - Thorough knowledge of the problem. A good analysis of the problem and the available opportunities and resources; - Good cooperation between all relevant departments with clear responsibilities and agreements on information exchange; - Good information of the population and involvement of organizations, volunteers and the local community. Aveiro: Cost-Benefit Analysis The 10 th seminar took place in Aveiro, on the 26 th and 27 th of October The seminar focused on cost-benefit analysis when designing mitigation strategies. The seminar started with an introduction by Marjan van Schijndel, senior consultant of ECORYS and expert on Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) in the field of transport and mobility. She explained how CBAs should be developed, and the differences between a financial CBA, a social CBA, a Cost Effect Analysis (CEA), and a Multy Criteria Analysis (MCA). Mrs. Van Schijndel also described the case of a LPG-Chain study in the Netherlands as an example of a successful CBA which highly influenced the decision making process in the South-Holland South area. After this first introduction, Dr Peter Roebeling from Centro de Estudos do Ambiente e do Mar (CESAM), Universidade de Aveiro, presented a CBA practice from the Aveiro region related to the mitigation of coastal erosion at the central Portuguese coast. Following the experts introductions, all partners presented own experience in the field of CBA and the differences and similarities in CBA methodologies among the different partners were discussed. As a general conclusion, the participants indicated that the drafting of a CBAs is not only very useful in order to choose between different mitigation solutions but also is of great value to create support for mitigation measures among decision makers and the public.

3 Tallinn: Financing & Legal Framework During the 11 th seminar on the 29 th and 30 th of November 2011 in Tallinn, partners discussed the relevant mitigation legislation in their country. Special attention was given to the responsibilities, mandates and budgets of public institutions when dealing with mitigation and also the legal responsibilities of private companies and civil society. Furthermore, an overview was given of the related budgets and specific financial framework examples were presented. An important message in the presentations was that when dealing with generating funding for mitigation measures often non-specific budgets like budgets for infrastructure and nature provide more opportunities than budgets specifically aimed at mitigation or safety themselves. That s why it is vital to make use of a network of public actors to reach mitigation goals as more funding sources can be used. A practice on finding funds from other institutions was described by citing the case of making the Dordrecht district Wielwijk climate-proof. As a best practice, a very interesting case was presented by Forli about public-private partnership. The authorization for the exploitation of the quarry Palazzina (gravel and sand), located along the river Savio near the city of Cesena, has been granted to a private company which, after the completion of its extracting activities, must realize a flooding basin that will be flooded in case of flooding of the Savio river. This way private interests generate funds to implement public tasks. But PPP is not always an option. Tallinn mentioned the fact that in Estonia municipalities are not allowed to work with private partners partners to mitigate risks and utilize a win-win situation. Forli: Lobby & Advocacy The 12 th thematic seminar on lobby and advocacy was organized in Forli on the 25 th and 26 th of January The seminar started with a general introduction on the subject by Forli representatives. After this general introduction, the case of the flood risk management works in the catchment area of Cesenatico was presented by the Forli River Basin Authority. In the presentation the representative made clear how lobby and advocacy from different groups forced the government to review their first plans. In the end, The government decided to build a smaller canal with extra flood detention areas to store the water in case of flooding. The works

4 became a lot more expensive while the safety did not increase as much as stipulated in the original plan. After this presentation a representative of the Civil Protection Unit Provincia di Forli-Cesena presented a general overview of the way they deal with lobby and advocacy and provided an interesting insight on their point of view regarding the case described above. The other partners also presented their experience on the subject. Epirus cited the case of the design of a natural gas pipeline and the way people and public and private bodies were trying to influence decision makers. The project manager of Mirandela introduced a case of building a dam in the District of Bragança. Thanks to a successful lobby strategy the result was the reforestation of 80 ha of protected trees in a forest fire area in their municipality. Tallinn explained why it is so important for risk mitigation in Tallinn North to have a good lobby strategy and how the local MiSRaR working group deals with it. Mitigation planning can be blocked, vetoed or changed on a state level and here the lobby & advocacy is necessary to forward good thoughts on risk mitigation. EPF presented their lobby practices resulting in a more efficient and effective way of cleaning roads in winter and combating extreme weather threats in the Gabrovo area. Mirandela: Monitoring & Evaluation In Mirandela the 13 th seminar was organized on the 6 th and 7 th of March. This seminar was about the feedback cycle in the mitigation planning process. During the seminar all partners exchanged experiences in the field of monitoring and evaluation and all clearly indicated the importance of not only good planning but also the subsequent monitoring of the implementation. Disasters often occur because control fails. Enforcement of permit conditions and regulations is an essential part of a mitigation strategy. An acknowledged problem by all partners is that this aspect is often assigned to different authorities, each with their own enforcement apparatus and formal powers. Cooperation in this respect would lead to more effective targeted enforcement that is also customer friendly. A second aspect that was discussed during the seminar concerned the issue that arises when a local government is responsible for the supervision of a higher authority. An example of such a case (and the problems it creates) was given by SHS introducing the current situation in the

5 Netherlands, where municipalities are responsible for monitoring of mitigation measures, even in the case that they are implemented by the central government (for instance during the constructing of a tunnel). The partners also discussed the evaluation of mitigation measures and how these results when analyzing risks. Fieldtrips A reoccurring event during the thematic seminars are the field trips to actual risk mitigation examples in practice. Some examples are: Visits to the local fire brigade and ambulance services, natural fire locations, the Kolga-Aabla wetlands and the football stadium of Aveiro. In the province of Forli Cescena an extended visit to the waterworks constructed in Cesenatico, during which the group could witness the results of the previously presented case with their own eyes. Remarkable was the demonstration of prescribed fire in Mirandela. Not only did the guests receive extensive information about the application of this instrument, but the method was also demonstrated in a forest area by the cooperating fire departments, forest agency and police. Some members of the MiSRaR group could not resist - obviously for a good cause - help set a piece of Portuguese forest on fire. Brochure on risk assessment presented The first MiSRaR brochure on risk assessment was presented in March 2012, during the thematic seminar in Mirandela. Antonio Branco, Mayor of Mirandela and involved in the project from the start as member of the Steering Committee, placed the Portuguese version on the website of his municipality. The brochure "Risk assessment: practical experiences within the European Union" appears in the languages of the partners and in English. All versions are available on the website

6 In the Netherlands, the brochure can be downloaded from the website of the safety region South-Holland South (ZHZ), and is also available in print through the MiSRaR project leader Nico van Os, via The other two brochures appear in the 2 nd quarter of In October the handbook will follow, which shall be presented during the closing conference of the project on October 25th in Dordrecht. Best Practice Fair Interreg4c In November 2011 MiSRaR participated in the Interreg IVC best practice fair in Krakow. Representatives of Tallinn, EPF and ZHZ manned the MiSRaR stand, which was strewn with presentation materials. Visitors showed significant interest in the project and it was also very interesting to see what other projects have accomplished so far, especially when dealing with risk related issues. The fair was well organized and worth repeating. Closing conference The closing conference of the project will take place on Thursday, October 25 th 2012, in the old Town Hall of the municipality of Dordrecht. About 50 participants from the various partner countries are expected. During this final conference we will look back on the project and in particular the results and the impact the project has had on the risk management of participating organizations. Also, the handbook shall be presented to the Chairman of the Steering Committee. Following the closing conference an internal project evaluation will be carried out by the project leaders. Each partner will then organize one or more local closing sessions of its own to further spread the results of MiSRaR.