Flood Risk Management In Europe: an exploration of governance challenges

Abstract

In order to make European regions more resilient to flood risks a broadening of Flood Risk Management strategies (FRMSs) might be necessary. The development and implementation of FRMSs like risk prevention, flood defence, mitigation, preparation and recovery is a matter of governance, a process of more or less institutionalized interaction between public and/or private entities ultimately aiming at the realization of collective goals. Such processes are institutionally embedded in Flood Risk Governance Arrangements (FRGAs), which can be defined as “the constellation resulting from a dynamic interplay between actors and actor coalitions involved in all policy domains relevant for Flood Risk Management – including water management, spatial planning and disaster management; their dominant discourses; formal and informal rules of the game; and the power and resource base of the actors involved”. This definition stresses that FRGAs have an actor dimension, a rule dimension, a power and resource dimension and a discursive dimension. By focussing on FRGAs we hope to get a better insight into the societal aspects of FRMSs and the way they are institutionally embedded in a broad sense. The concept allows us to combine insights from policy scientists as well as legal scholars and urges researchers to focus on FRMSs using combined perspectives. The aim of this report is twofold. First we want to explore the governance challenges a shift in FRMSs may pose to society and second we will identify questions for further research. The report is based on a first exploration of relevant scientific articles and reports. Governance challenges are found within each of the four dimensions of the FRGAs. We therefore discuss these dimensions in separate chapters. Major challenges in the actor dimension are the necessity to organise joint working between relevant actors in an effective way, to adequately involve stakeholders and to optimise the science-policy interface. In the rule dimension we have found that the major challenge concerns the translation of general Flood Risk Management principles into a set of more specific organisational, substantive and procedural provisions. Efficient and joint use of resources is the major challenge addressed under the power and resources dimension. The overarching discourse-related governance challenge is the realisation of a discursive shift. Overall, our exploration indicates that FRGAs tend to be highly fragmented. The overall challenge flood risk governance has to face is the development and implementation of inspiring bridging concepts which change agents may use to create synergies between key actors involved in flood risk governance. Concepts like Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) or climate proofing are examples of this. Empirical research is needed to further elaborate on this.