Evaluation of Policies and Strategies for Coastal Risk Management COMRISK Subproject 1

Transcription

1 9 Evauation of Poicies and Strategies for Coasta Risk Management COMRISK Subproject 1 MARINKA VAN NIELEN-KIEZEBRINK,JEROEN KLOOSTER Summary square kiometres in the southern North Sea Region is potentiay affected by fooding. In this area 16 miion peope ive and work. The governments of the countries invoved manage this risk. Comparing them, both their actions and their goas have differences as we as simiarities. This paper presents the resuts of an evauation study of poicies and strategies in the countries bordering the southern North Sea. For the assessment a comprehensive anaytica framework is used. In the framework a distinction between context and poicy is made. Poicy argey depends on context eements such as the history of fooding, the cutura, socio-economic setting, institutiona setting, pubic awareness. Within each country specific context there is however a certain degree of poicy freedom. This impies that countries can earn from each other. The observed differences between the countries offer opportunities and chaenges to exchange experiences and information. They might even adopt part of each other s poicies, strategies, measures or instruments within the country specific context and coud even ead to common strategies. Defining common strategies and poicies does not necessariy have to ead to harmonisation of poicies. Athough future harmonisation of poicies and strategies shoud not be avoided when desirabe and feasibe, poicy makers have to focus on further mutua understanding and mutua earning. Zusammenfassung Quadratkiometer in der südichen Nordseeregion sind potentie überfutungsgefährdet. In diesem Raum eben und arbeiten 16 Miionen Menschen. Die Regierungen der betroffenen Länder gehen mit diesem Risiko um. Einen Vergeich zeigt, dass ihre Maßnahmen und Ziee Ähnichkeiten und Unterschiede aufweisen. In diesem Beitrag werden die Resutate einer Evauierungsstudie über die Poitiken und Strategien in den Nordsee-Anrainerstaaten präsentiert. Für die Untersuchung wurde ein umfassendes Anayseverfahren benutzt. Dieses Verfahren unterscheidet zwischen Kontext und Poitik bzw. Strategie. Die Strategie ist zum größten Tei abhängig vom Kontext, zum Beispie von der Überfutungsgeschichte, den kutureen, soziaen, wirtschaftichen und institutioneen Rahmen sowie dem Probembewusstsein. Innerhab dieses Kontextes existiert jedoch ein gewisser poitischer Handungsspieraum. Somit können die Länder voneinander ernen. Die beobachteten Unterschiede zwischen den Ländern bieten Chancen und Herausforderungen für einen Austausch von Erfahrungen und Informationen. Dies könnte eine teiweise Übernahme von Strategien, Maßnahmen oder Instrumenten innerhab des eigenen Kontextes beinhaten bis hin zu gemeinsamen Strategien. Gemeinsame Strategien und Poitiken zu definieren muss nicht zwangsweise zu einer Harmonisierung der Poitiken führen. Obwoh künftige Harmonisierung von Poitiken und Strategien nicht vermieden werden soten wenn sie wünschenswert und machbar ist, sote der Fokus auf dem Vorantreiben des gegenseitigen Verständnisses und dem Lernen voneinander iegen. Keywords Coast, risk management, food defence, risk strategies

2 10 Contents 1. Introduction Methodoogy: context versus poicy Chaenges in context Focus points in poicies and strategies Concusions and recommendations Literature Introduction square kiometres in the southern North Sea Region is potentiay affected by fooding (figure 1). In this area 16 miion peope ive and work. The governments of the countries invoved try to manage this risk. Both their actions and their goas have differences as we as simiarities. The concept of coasta food risk management was derived from safety science theory (KIRWAN et a., 2002). Risk is a combination of the probabiity (or frequency) of occurrence of a defined hazard and the magnitude of the consequences of the occurrence. It is not necessariy a number. Risk management is the process of impementing decisions about accepting or atering risk, based on an assessment of various costs and benefits. This aso impies decisions about acceptabe risk eves and appropriate measures. In appying risk management to the fied of coasta food risk management the foowing steps are identified: Identification of the nature and extent of food risks; Understanding and addressing the reevant pubic perceptions; Estabishing goas and standards with respect to the food risk; Estabishing strategies and poicies to achieve these goas; Finay minimizing the costs of achieving the goas, whist ensuring the risk remains acceptabe. On behaf of the Rijkswaterstaat Dutch Nationa Institute for Coasta and Marine Management / RIKZ, a consortium of KPMG Strategy Economics, Atos KPMG Consuting and TU Deft carried out an evauation of poicies and strategies for coasta risk management (KLOOSTER en VAN RAAK, 2004). This paper presents the resuts of this evauation study. For this evauation the foowing specific objectives were formuated: An inventory of different eves (strategic, institutiona, instrumenta and operationa) of coasta risk management in present nationa poicies of the 5 countries in the North Sea region, invoved in the COMRISK project. An assessment of the present nationa poicies in terms of ega, socia, technica, financia, socio-economic, ecoogica and manageria aspects (incuding the ICZM-principes for sustainabiity). 2. Methodoogy: context versus poicies The strategies and poicies of the countries invoved were identified, reviewed and compared within an anaytica framework. For the inventory nationa poicy documents and a seection of documents of ower governments reevant to coasta, food risk and water management were studied. In addition,

3 11 Fig. 1: Food prone area in the North Sea region (source: JORISSEN et a., 2001) Fig. 2: Anaytica framework

4 12 earier cross-country studies into North West European food risk management and coasta management were studied. To fi specific information gaps and to find the motivation behind the poicies, 25 interviews with coasta food risk poicy-makers and experts were hed. The anaytica framework (figure 2) distinguishes between the context and poicy. The context comprises the important chaenges that governments in the regions face in reation to the management of the risk of fooding from the sea. Chaenges can be threats to be confronted or avoided, but may aso be opportunities to be expored and possiby expoited. Governments deveop poicies to manage the risk of fooding within the country specific context but may not be abe to infuence the context directy. Depending on the socio-economic and socio-cutura setting, countries may adopt different forms of coasta risk management poicies. For this reason we have refrained from taking one country as best practice or to speak of the optima coasta risk management process, as this wi differ from country to country, to fit the particuar context. The key foca points within a poicy can, however, be indicated. For this purpose the ICZM-criteria as formuated by the European Commission are used as a startingpoint. These principes offer various ways of good coasta zone management. The EU-ICZM principes however are formuated at quite a high and abstract eve. Furthermore they reate to both the institutiona structure and to the poicy of coasta management. To make the ICZM principes more concrete, they are transated to possibe focus points for coasta risk management. The resuts of the assessments are discussed in the foowing sections and summarized in tabe 1, 2 and 3. The chaenges in context and focuses in poicies are indicated with dots in tabe 1 and 2. A back dot indicates a major chaenge or focus and an open dot indicates significant chaenges or focuses. 3. Chaenges in the context The chaenges experienced by the governmensts in the 5 North Sea countries in reation to the risks of fooding from the sea are summarized in tabe 1. A countries regard cimate change and the corresponding sea eve rise as major chaenge (tabe 1). Keeping this in mind, the Dutch physica context is both in absoute and reative terms the most chaenging, athough it has some protective dunes, it has the argest and deepest foodprone areas (poders) of a countries. To make things even more urgent the Netherands major cities are situated in food-prone areas. The German coastine offers the east natura protection, but the hinterand has much smaer and ess deep foodprone areas. The major city of Hamburg is party situated in one of them. Aso London is partiay ocated in one of Engands foodprone areas. Deveopment pressure is a major issue for the Netherands and Engand, but ess so in the other countries. Ecoogica reguation is a compicating factor to poicy-making, but in most cases not regarded as a major chaenge to the existing poicy. Poicymakers in amost a regions are confronted with sensitive natura habitats at their coast, which brings imitations and conditions to coasta defences. The common chaenge for poicy-makers in Engand, Fanders, the Netherands and to a esser extent Niedersachsen, is to raise the sense of urgency among their citizens to make them either support governmenta action or take action themseves. In Scheswig-Hostein, citizens are aso noted not to be very aware of the risk of fooding, but this has not ead to practica difficuties in impementing poicy. Hamburg and Denmark in genera fee that the demand and support for action is about right.

5 13 Engand Fanders Hamburg Schesw. Hostein Different countries focus on different aspects of poicies and strategies in order to manage the risks of coasta fooding. These focus points are summarized in tabe 2. The potentia focus points are derived from the ICZM criteria. In some respects they aso reate to the organisation of food risk management. With respect to goa-setting, Engand and the Netherands have a muti-generation time horizon in common. Both countries have expored the ong-term demands for coasta pro- Netherands Niedersachsen Denmark Chaenges from externa deveopments Reative sea eve rise Ecoogica reguation Pressure for deveopment Physica opportunities and threats Large amount of food-prone area Deep food-prone areas Natura coastine offers itte protection Chaenges from the socio-economic functions Tabe 1: Chaenges in the context Major cities threatened Designated nature areas Chaenges from societa perceptions Low sense of urgency citizens * Chaenges from the institutiona context Limited staff capacity Limited budget Limited reation to disaster management poicy * Limited reation to spatia panning poicy Limited vertica integration ** Major chaenge Chaenge * Limited reation, but not regarded as a probem; ** According to the oca eve, there is a poicy vacuum Limited budgets is a common chaenge for poicy makers in a countries. The chaenge of integrating of poicy across different fieds and at different scaes, is more ambiguous. In some cases poicy integration is not strong, but often the primary poicy-makers do not consider this as a major probem. The vertica integration in Engand has improved according to a interviewees, however at the oca eve a nationa poicy vacuum was reported by some. 4. Focus points in poicies and strategies

6 14 Tabe 2: Focus points poicies and strategies Fanders Nieder sachsen Schesw. Hostein Goa-setting Taking into account the needs of many generations Economica costs and benefits taken into account Ecoogica carrying capacity taken into account Focus points in measures Aowing dynamics Aowance of oca taior-made soutions Variety of measures Variety of methods to achieve measures Monitoring and evauation Performance monitoring of measures Reconsideration at strategic eve Major focus Some focus tection. The other countries generay have imited themseves to study how in the ong run the current eve of protection coud be maintained. Engand has a strong focus on costs and benefits; for every project a benefit/cost ratio is cacuated. In the Netherands and Denmark current safety standards were set decades ago with much consideration to costs and benefits. These are currenty being updated. Hamburg and Niedersachsen (in the Weser-Ems region) take some account of potentia damages. However, since the dike design reguation does not aow for variabe protection eves, this aspect cannot be directy incorporated in decision-making. Scheswig-Hostein however has incorporated this type of information in setting priorities in impementation of measures: ocations with highest monetary or other vaue are first on the ist. The way the ecoogica carrying capacity is taken into account is quite simiar in a countries, as EU aw reguates matters such as the Environmenta Impact Assessments and the protection of habitats. The aowance of dynamics of the coast is very much connected to erosion poicy, which is outside the scope of this study. Engand aows argey for dynamics, incuding the setting back of dike ines. In Fanders, the Netherands, Niedersachsen (for the isands) and Denmark some dynamics are aowed, though in genera the currenty protected areas wi remain protected. In Germany a retreat poicy for the main and might be foowed in exceptiona cases. Engand has permissive egisation, ike Denmark. Nationa governments in these countries have the right to fund measures, if budgets aow, and if justified. They aso give poicy and procedura guidance to ower governments and operating authorities. However there is no ega duty to take action. Denmark and Engand thus pace much emphasis on the initiative and freedom of the counties and boards, whereas the Niedersachsen high eve poicy is stricty prescribing and oca poicy-making is imited. The Scheswig-Hostein high eve po- Engand Netherands Hamburg Denmark

7 icy-maker eaves freedom to the water boards with regard to the secondary dikes. Hamburg is itsef practicay a oca authority and aso eaves freedom to industry areas to arrange their own protection measures. In the Netherands and Fanders standards are set at the centra eve. However oca taioring is receiving more and more attention. Aternatives to reach the safety standard are discussed with oca communities and municipaities. The difference in the roe of authorities in Engand and the Netherands is we iustrated with fig. 2. As pointed out, Engand, Denmark and to some esser extent Hamburg use a variety of measures to manage the risk of fooding from the sea (see aso tabe 3). Besides coasta protection these authorities aso take acount of the possibe consequences of fooding more expicity than Fanders, the Netherands and the other German states, which concentrate mosty on coasta defence. The Netherands, though focused on coasta defence, is aso more and more searching for more hoistic approaches to managing coasta risks. With respect to monitoring and evauation a countries try to improve their actions by earning about their performance. However, ony few countries are reconsidering their genera set of goas and measures or have done so recenty (Engand, Fanders and the Netherands). 15 Fig. 3: Differences in the roe of authorities in the Netherands and Engand in reation to food risk management as iustrated by pubic communications

8 16 Tabe 3: Seection of instruments with respect to point of intervention. Reduction of probabiity of fooding Instruments Coasta food protection Point of intervention Engand Fanders Netherands Niedersachsen Hamburg Schesw.- Hostein Denmark Primary sea defences Secondary sea defences Prepare for emergency strengthening Reduction of consequences of fooding Compensation Avoid deveopment in food prone areas* Food resistant buiding Crisis management Recovery Forecasting and warning Evacuation and rescue operations Prepare to restore and and infrastructure Redistribution of costs or damages Used imited, considered unimportant; Used, considered of some importance Used, considered important; Used, considered crucia *) The Netherands, Scheswig-Hostein, Niedersachsen en Fanders ony have restrictions for buiding in the first (or first few) 100 m of dunes. Denmark appies a wider zone, reated tot protection of the andscape. 5. Concusions and recommendations The concept of food risk management optimizing both the probabities and the consequences of fooding is emerging in a five countries in the North Sea region, athough in some countries more pronounced than others. In Engand and Denmark governments have chosen more points for intervention than for instance in the Netherands and Germany, where focus is mainy on prevention of fooding. The actua transation of the concept of risk management into formaized poicies and strategies has not happened in a countries and might face some serious obstaces. For exampe in Germany, where according to nationa reguations, every inhabitant has the right to the same eve of protection against fooding. Harmonization on a aspects of coasta food risk management does not seem to be feasabe due to the differences in the contexts and approaches in the five countries, which are in some cases (the Netherands, Germany) even aid down in nationa egisation. Definition of a common strategy however does not have to mean harmonization of poicies. Athough future harmonisation of poicies and strategies shoud not be avoided when desirabe and feasibe,

9 at the moment it is more appropoiate to focus on further mutua understanding and mutua earning. Eements that seem especiay interesting in this respect incude: pubic awareness in reation to responsibiity of acting (government versus sef acting of individuas), insurance versus compensation, evacuation and crisis management Literature Environment Agency JORISSEN, R., LITJENS VAN LOON, J., MENDEZ LORENZO, A. Fooding risk in coasta areas. Risks, safety eves and probabiistic techniques in five countries aong the North Sea coast, 2001 KIRWAN, B., HALE, A. and HOPKINS, A. (EDS): Changing reguation Controing risks in society, Oxford, Pergamon, 2002 KLOOSTER, J., VAN RAAK, R.: COMRISK Subproject 1 Evauation of poicies and strategies for coasta risk management. KPMG, 2004 RIJK, INTERPROVINCIAAL OVERLEG, DE UNIE VAN WATERSCHAPPEN EN DE VERENIGING VAN NEDERLANDSE GEMEENTEN