Recent publications

Governance capacities for adaptive water management

Summary: We do not know how socio-economic developments and the consequences of climate change will affect our society in the next decades, yet we already have to design adaptation strategies to be prepared for this uncertain future. The measures we take on the short term have to fit in a long-term strategy. Every step we take has to connect to the previous one and facilitate the ones ahead such that in combination they are a pathway towards a climate proof and sustainable future in which the availability of sufficiently fresh and clean water, and a high level of flood protection are secured.

Flexibility is key to adaptive water management. Water professionals need to invest in a number of governance capacities that will enable them to integrate the elements of water governance. According to us these elements are: legal, managerial, financial, institutional, and social.

By doing so they will be able to look further than their own discipline and assemble several interests into one solution. This solution will probably not be the best solution for all interests at stake; interests have to give way in order to give other interests elbow-room as well. There will not be a win-win situation for all the interests involved. More importantly, the society as a whole will be the winner.

Adaptive water management and strengthening governance capacities means that we have to make the most of opportunities. The biggest window of opportunities is the Delta Programme, a fine example of a new, forward looking approach, in which different interests are assembled and strategies are defined that cross the borders of several domains. This Programme should boost the strengthening of the governance capacities that are highlighted in this paper. Not only by focusing on the water professionals of today, but also by focusing on education and research, and thus on the water professionals of the future. After all, adaptive water management is about thinking ahead, in terms of the strategies we need and the skills of those who can make that happen.

More information: Water Governance nummer 1, 2011

Contingency Planning for Large-Scale Floods in the Netherlands

Background: In 2004 the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency published the report Dutch dikes and risk hikes – A thematic policy evaluation of risks of flooding in the Netherlands (Dutch title: Risico’s in bedijkte termen). In this report it was concluded that contingency planning for large-scale floods in the Netherlands was insufficient. The preparation for floods got a lot of attention when large parts of New Orleans flooded in 2005. The Dutch government set up a taskforce for the management of floods that raised flood preparation to a higher level in a couple of years time. Scenarios of worst credible floods that might occur in the Netherlands were an important starting point for this.

Recently, these scenarios, and the options and limitations authorities face in their preparation for extreme flood scenarios, have been published in the Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. Co-authors of this paper on Contingency Planning for Large-Scale Floods in the Netherlands are Bas Kolen and Koen Wouters from HKV Consultants, and Aad Dollee and Harold van Waveren from the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management (Centre for Water management).

Summary: Contingency plans for hazards are based on scenarios at different scales. The most extreme scenarios reflect the idea of ‘think the unthinkable’. For large-scale floods in the Netherlands, this idea has been given an upper limit called ‘worst credible floods’: an upper limit for floods that are still considered realistic or credible by experts. Considering the enormous impact of a worst credible flood in the Netherlands and the uncertainty of how a disaster might unfold, a realistic preparation for flood disasters should leave room for improvisation and should be based on relatively simple plans, and on public awareness. The huge consequences of worst credible floods show that the country’s safety will continue to depend on pro-active and preventive measures.

More information: Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management Volume 18 Number 1, 2010.

The evaluation of flood risk policy in the Netherlands

Background: In 2004 the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency published the report Dutch dikes and risk hikes – A thematic policy evaluation of risks of flooding in the Netherlands (Dutch title: Risico’s in bedijkte termen). The report presents the results of the first evaluation of flood risk management policy since the flood disaster of 1953 (that killed almost 2000 people). A summary of this report has been published in the journal Water Management. Co-authors of this paper on The evaluation of flood risk policy in the Netherlands are Bert Bannink from Ecowater and Willem Ligtvoet from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Summary: Dams, dikes and coastal defences in the Netherlands have never been stronger: the probability of encountering floods from rivers or from the sea has substantially declined since the last flooding in the south-western part of the Netherlands in 1953. However, the risks of casualties and of economic damage from flooding have become much greater since this event. This paradoxical situation is the result of a growing discrepancy between the existent set of design standards for the height and strength of dams, dikes, and coastal defences set around 1960, and a steady social and economic development since that time. The average yearly economic expansion since 1960 has been twice as high as expected at that time and the population at risk in the Netherlands has more than doubled. In the period between 1960 and present the design standards have not been corrected for the increased economic value and population.
Compared to other risks, the societal risk of flooding (the probability of large numbers of casualties) in the Netherlands appears to be several orders of magnitude larger than the sum of the societal risks of other known external hazards (e.g. industrial hazards and plane crashes). A further increase in flood risk is expected due to further economic and social development.

More information: Water Management Volume 161, 2008.

Safety chain approach in flood risk management

Background: Risk reduction of, for instance, an airport or a factory with hazardous substances, not only focuses on the reduction of a disaster itself. It also focuses on measures that reduce the consequences if a disaster would take place. This all hazard approach is about all the links of the so-called safety chain: pro-action, prevention, preparation, response and recovery. Until recently, flood risk reduction policy almost exclusively focused on pro-action and prevention. Over the last years the approach has been broadened. An international assessment of flood risk management policy in several countries has been carried out to find what the Netherlands can learn from those countries. This assessment has been published in the journal Municipal Engineer. Co-authors of this paper on the Safety chain approach in flood risk management are Geesje Saeijs from Saeijs Consultancy, Ira Helsloot from the Free University of Amsterdam and Jos van Alphen from the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management (Centre for Water management).

Summary: Historically the Dutch have put a strong emphasis on prevention (building dikes) in their flood risk management policy. However, in current public debate it is questioned whether this historically grown flood risk policy is still the best protection policy for the country in the 21st century. In this article the so-called safety chain approach is used to address this question. The safety chain distinguishes between five links or phases of risk and crisis management: pro-action, prevention, preparation, response and recovery. This approach is used to evaluate flood risk management policy in several countries and perform a cross-national comparison.

The international comparison supports the hypothesis that the safety chain approach is a useful tool for policy evaluation and that valuable lessons can be drawn from different approaches in other countries. Furthermore, it is found that the Dutch flood defense strategy, focused on prevention, cannot be replaced by measures in other links of the chain. This strategy can, however, be broadened by more pro-active measures and additional efforts on preparation, response and recovery. By doing so the consequences of a possible flooding would be better taken into account and the policy focus would shift from managing the probability of floodings to managing flood risk (both probability and consequences).

More information: Municipal Engineer Volume 161, 2008.