DOCSLIB.ORG

Opzet Draaiboek STAR-FLOOD

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Strengthening and Redesigning European Flood Risk Practices Towards Appropriate and Resilient Flood Risk Governance Arrangements Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in England – Enhancing societal resilience through comprehensive and aligned flood risk governance arrangements Alexander, M., Priest, S., Micou, A.P., Tapsell, S., Green, C., Parker, D., and Homewood, S. Date: 31 March 2016 Report Number: D3.3 Milestone number: MS3 Due date for deliverable: 30 September 2015 Actual submission date: 28 September 2015 STAR-FLOOD receives funding from the EU 7th Framework programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement 308364 Document Dissemination Level PU Public Co-ordinator: Utrecht University Project Contract No: 308364 Project website: www.starflood.eu ISBN: i Cover photo left: Thames Barrier (Dries Hegger, 2013) Cover photo right: City of London (Dries Hegger, 2013) Document information Work Package 3 Consortium Body Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University Year 2016 Document type Deliverable 3.3 Date 11th September 2015 (With amendments made in February 2016) Author(s) Alexander, M., Priest, S., Micou, A., Tapsell, S., Green, C., Parker, D., and Homewood, S. Acknowledgement The work described in this publication was supported by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme through the grant to the budget of the Integrated Project STAR-FLOOD, Contract 308364. We would like to acknowledge and offer our gratitude to the flood risk professionals and academic experts who participated in this research. We also appreciate the valuable critique provided by Prof. Edmund Penning-Rowsell. Disclaimer This document reflects only the authors’ views and not those of the European Union. This work may rely on data from sources external to the STAR-FLOOD project Consortium. Members of the Consortium do not accept liability for loss or damage suffered by any third party as a result of errors or inaccuracies in such data. The information in this document is provided ‘as is’ and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and neither the European Union nor any member of the STAR-FLOOD Consortium is liable for any use that may be made of the information. © STAR-FLOOD Consortium. This report should be referenced as follows; Alexander, M., Priest, S., Micou, A.P., Tapsell, S., Green, C., Parker, D., and Homewood, S. (2016) Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in England – Enhancing societal resilience through comprehensive and aligned flood risk governance. STAR-FLOOD Consortium. Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University. ISBN 978-94-91933-07-3 i Key words Flood risk governance Flood risk management Legal frameworks governing floods Discourse Resources Rules Actors Resilience Legitimacy Efficiency England Author details Dr. Meghan Alexander is a Researcher at the Flood Hazard Research Centre of Middlesex University. Dr. Sally Priest is a Senior Research Fellow at the Flood Hazard Research Centre of Middlesex University. Dr. Ana Paula Micou is a Researcher at the Flood Hazard Research Centre of Middlesex University. Sue Tapsell, MA, is Head of the Flood Hazard Research Centre of Middlesex University. Prof. Colin Green is a Professor of Water Economics at the Flood Hazard Research Centre of Middlesex University. Prof. Dennis Parker is an Emeritus Professor at the Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University Stephen Homewood formally Principal Lecturer in the School of Law at Middlesex University, specialising in public and environmental law. ii Preface This report is the third deliverable of the EU 7th Framework Project STAR-FLOOD (www.starflood.eu). STAR-FLOOD focuses on flood risk governance. The project investigates strategies for dealing with flood risks in 18 vulnerable urban regions in six European countries: England (UK), Belgium, France, The Netherlands, Poland and Sweden. The project assesses Flood Risk Governance Arrangements from a combined public administration and legal perspective, with the aim to make European regions more resilient to flood risks. Work Package 1 provided an extended problem analysis related to Flood Risk Governance in Europe and Work Package 2 focused on how Flood Risk Governance in Europe can be researched. Work Package 3 forms the empirical core of the project, in which analysis, explanations and evaluations of each country, including three case studies, have been performed1. This report constitutes deliverable D3.3 and summarises the research conducted in England (UK) at the national and case study level of analysis; including the case studies of Kingston-upon-Hull (North East England), the Lower Thames (South East England) and the City of Leeds (North England). In contrast to other Partner countries, flood risk governance in England is characterised by its complexity and comprehensive approach to flood risk management. There are considerable strengths of this system in terms of enhancing societal resilience to flooding, resource efficiency and the legitimacy of flood risk governance. This report accompanies five other reports for each partner country (D3.2 to D3.7). Alongside D3.1, a report of workshops held in each country, these deliverables form the main input for the last two Work Packages of STAR-FLOOD; WP4 and WP5. Whereas WP4 focuses on a systematic comparison between the STAR-FLOOD consortium countries; WP5 identifies design principles for appropriate and resilient Flood Risk Governance. We trust that the current report is of interest for a broad readership with an interest in Flood Risk Management and governance. The content of this report may inspire researchers and professionals with an interest in social scientific and legal research into Flood Risk Management, Disaster Risk Reduction or climate change adaptation. Yours sincerely, Dr. Ann Crabbé Prof. Peter Driessen Leader of WP3 STAR-FLOOD project coordinator Dr Meghan Alexander Lead author for this report 1 Other deliverable reports for each country are as follows; The Netherlands (D3.2); Belgium (3.4); Sweden (3.5); Poland (D3.6); France (D3.7) iii Overview of key findings 1. Main characteristics of flood risks in England Flooding has been identified in the National Risk Register and UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2012 as a significant current and future risk in England (HM Government, 2012a). According to the National Flood Risk Assessment (NAFRA), one in six residential and commercial properties are at risk from fluvial, coastal or surface water flooding (excluding current defences in place). Although there are methodological challenges and uncertainties in risk estimation (Penning-Rowsell, 2015), national policy is guided by the NAFRA approach. Flood risk is exacerbated by a range of factors, such as land use change (including urbanisation), population growth, aging drainage infrastructure and natural processes (e.g. erosion and subsidence). Furthermore there is mounting evidence that flood risk will increase under scenarios for climate change (Evans et al., 2004; 2008; Ramsbottom et al., 2012). Flood Risk Management (FRM) is thus rising on the political agenda. It is widely recognised that flood prevention through defence networks is not feasible for every at- risk location; rather social, economic and environmentally sustainable FRM requires a portfolio of structural and non-structural solutions to minimise the adverse, tangible and intangible consequences of flooding (Defra, 2005; Defra/EA, 2011a). In contrast to other European countries, a diversified and holistic approach to FRM has been established for ca.65 years in England. A range of FRM measures (FRMMs) have been consistently applied, but have arguably diversified within certain strategies in recent years; such as encouraging the uptake of property-level measures and community flood action plans to enhance strategies of mitigation and preparation and response (Defra/EA, 2011a; Table ES1). Table ES1: Some of the current measures employed in FRM, England Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs) Flood Risk Management Measures (FRMMs) . Spatial planning to influence location and layout of Prevention future development. The sequential test is a mechanism to reduce development on the floodplain. This strategy aims to minimise people’s exposure . Multi-functional land use i.e. space is designated for to flooding, this is achieved via measures that several purposes (e.g. a park may also function as a keep people and property away from water. flood storage area and is expected to flood during heavy rainfall) Defence . Tidal surge Barriers and sluices . Embankments This strategy aims to minimise the likelihood . Flood walls and/or magnitude of flooding, via measures that . Conveyance engineering (e.g. dredging) keep water away from people i.e. measures that . Demountable defences act to resist water. Mitigation . Flood storage areas / retention basins . Natural flood management measures e.g. peatland This strategy aims to minimise the likelihood restoration, wetland creation, tree planting and and/or magnitude of flooding, via measures that restoration of riverside corridors accommodate water. Managed realignment iv Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs) Flood Risk Management Measures (FRMMs) . Property resistance and resilience measures . Green roofs . Living walls . Permeable pavements . Designated floor heights above flood level . Flood forecasting . Range of communication methods for disseminating flood warnings (e.g.Floodline warnings
Recommended publications
  • Belper Parks Local Nature Reserve & Manor Recreation Ground Management Plan

    Belper Parks Local Nature Reserve & Manor Recreation Ground Management Plan

    Belper Parks Local Nature Reserve & Manor Recreation Ground Management Plan Amber Valley Borough Council 1 Belper Parks LNR & Manor Recreation Ground Amber Valley Borough Council Management Plan 2018 – 2023 Document History Date Written Description Author (s) November 2006 Management Plan 2007 - 2012 AVBC – Wildlife Trust – Groundwork Trust November 2011 Management Plan 2012 - 2017 AVBC – Wildlife Trust – Groundwork Trust January 2018 Management Plan 2018 – 2023 AVBC – Wildlife Trust – Groundwork Trust Contact: Richard Hodgkinson Open Spaces Officer Amber Valley Borough Council Landscapes, Growth & Community Safety Town Hall Ripley Derbyshire DE5 3BT Direct Line Tel: 01773 841320 Main Switch Board: 01773 570222 Website: www.ambervalley.gov.uk Email: [email protected] 2 Contents Page Executive Summary Chapter 1. Introduction, background & context 1.0 Introduction & background 6 2.0 Vision 6 3.0 Aims 6 4.0 Site name 7 5.0 Location & size 7 6.0 Site description 8 7.0 Land tenure 13 8.0 Legal factors 13 9.0 Local demographics 14 10.0 History 15 Chapter 2. Where are we now? 11.0 Introduction 19 12.0 The Green Flag Award 19 13.0 A welcoming place 19 14.0 Healthy, safe and secure 22 15.0 Well maintained and clean 25 16.0 Environmental Management 26 17.0 Biodiversity, Landscape and Heritage 28 18.0 Community involvement 38 19.0 Marketing and Communication 41 20.0 Management 42 Chapter 3. Where do we want to go? 21.0 Introduction 44 22.0 Aims and objectives - Action Plan 44 23.0 Conservation Maintenance 48 Additional information
  • Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

    Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

    Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Published in December 2014 RBWM Local Flood Risk Management Strategy December 2014 2 RBWM Local Flood Risk Management Strategy December 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION .............................................................................................8 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................8 1.1 The Purpose of the Strategy ...........................................................................................8 1.2 Overview of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead ................................................9 1.3 Types of flooding ....................................................................................................... 11 1.4 Who is this Strategy aimed at? .....................................................................................12 1.5 The period covered by the Strategy ...............................................................................12 1.6 The Objectives of the Strategy ......................................................................................12 1.7 Scrutiny and Review ...................................................................................................13 2 Legislative Context ..........................................................................................................14 2.1 The Pitt Review .........................................................................................................14
  • Battle for the Floodplains

    Battle for the Floodplains

    Battle for the Floodplains: An Institutional Analysis of Water Management and Spatial Planning in England Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the for the Degree of Doctor in Philosophy by Karen Michelle Potter September 2012 Abstract Dramatic flood events witnessed from the turn of the century have renewed political attention and, it is believed, created new opportunities for the restoration of functional floodplains to alleviate the impact of flooding on urban development. For centuries, rural and urban landowning interests have dominated floodplains and water management in England, through a ‘hegemonic discourse alliance’ on land use development and flood defence. More recently, the use of structural flood defences has been attributed to the exacerbation of flood risk in towns and cities, and we are warned if water managers proceeded with ‘business as usual’ traditional scenarios, this century is predicted to see increased severe inconveniences at best and human catastrophes at worst. The novel, sustainable and integrated policy response is highly dependent upon the planning system, heavily implicated in the loss of floodplains in the past, in finding the land for restoring functioning floodplains. Planners are urged to take this as a golden opportunity to make homes and businesses safer from flood risk, but also to create an environment with green spaces and richer habitats for wildlife. Despite supportive changes in policy, there are few urban floodplain restoration schemes being implemented in practice in England, we remain entrenched in the engineered flood defence approach and the planner’s response is deemed inadequate. The key question is whether new discourses and policy instruments on sustainable, integrated water management can be put into practice, or whether they will remain ‘lip-service’ and cannot be implemented after all.
  • An Introduction to Internal Drainage Boards (Idbs)

    An Introduction to Internal Drainage Boards (Idbs)

    An introduction to Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) Association of Drainage Authorities The national representative of IDBs in England & Wales What is an Internal Drainage Board? An Internal Drainage Board (IDB) is a local public authority that manages water levels. They are an integral part of managing flood risk and land drainage within areas of special drainage need in England and Wales. Each IDB has permissive powers to undertake work to provide water level management within their Internal Drainage District (IDD), undertaking works to reduce flood risk to people and property and manage water levels for local needs. Much of their work involves the maintenance of rivers, drainage channels, outfalls and pumping stations, facilitating drainage of new developments and advising on planning applications. They also have statutory duties with regard to the environment and recreation when exercising their permissive powers. The forerunners of today’s IDBs date back to the time of Henry III who established a Commission for drainage of Romney Marsh in Kent in 1252. Most IDBs today were established by the Government following the passing of the Land Drainage Act 1930. The activities and responsibilities of IDBs are currently controlled by the Land Drainage Act 1991 as amended by subsequent legislation. IDBs are also defined as Risk Management Authorities within the Flood & Water Management Act 2010 alongside the Environment Agency, local authorities and water companies. Today, there are 121 IDBs in Great Britain, 120 in Geographical distribution of England and 3 in Wales (2 IDBs cross the border). IDBs IDBs in England & Wales cover 1.2 million hectares of England (9.7% of England’s (Source: Sharon Grafton, ADA) total land area) and 28,500 hectares of Wales (1.4% of the Wales’ total land area).
  • Building Flood Resilience in a Changing Climate Insights from the United States, England and Germany

    Building Flood Resilience in a Changing Climate Insights from the United States, England and Germany

    Building Flood Resilience in a Changing Climate Insights from the United States, England and Germany June 2020 Building Flood Resilience in a Changing Climate Insights from the United States, England and Germany Maryam Golnaraghi, The Geneva Association Swenja Surminski, London School of Economics Carolyn Kousky, Wharton Risk Center, University of Pennsylvania Building Flood Resilience in a Changing Climate 1 The Geneva Association The Geneva Association was created in 1973 and is the only global association of insurance companies; our members are insurance and reinsurance Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). Based on rigorous research conducted in collaboration with our members, academic institutions and multilateral organisations, our mission is to identify and investigate key trends that are likely to shape or impact the insurance industry in the future, highlighting what is at stake for the industry; develop recommendations for the industry and for policymakers; provide a platform to our members, policymakers, academics, multilateral and non-governmental organisations to discuss these trends and recommendations; reach out to global opinion leaders and influential organisations to highlight the positive contributions of insurance to better understanding risks and to building resilient and prosperous economies and societies, and thus a more sustainable world. The Geneva Association—International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics Talstrasse 70, CH-8001 Zurich Email: [email protected] | Tel: +41 44 200 49 00 | Fax: +41 44 200 49 99 Photo credits: Cover page—Matthew Orselli, Shutterstock. June 2020 Building Flood Resilience in a Changing Climate © The Geneva Association Published by The Geneva Association—International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics, Zurich.
  • The Winter Floods of 2015/2016 in the UK - a Review

    The Winter Floods of 2015/2016 in the UK - a Review

    National Hydrological Monitoring Programme The winter floods of 2015/2016 in the UK - a review by Terry Marsh, Celia Kirby, Katie Muchan, Lucy Barker, Ed Henderson & Jamie Hannaford National Hydrological Monitoring Programme The winter floods of 2015/2016 in the UK - a review by Terry Marsh, Celia Kirby, Katie Muchan, Lucy Barker, Ed Henderson & Jamie Hannaford CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY & HYDROLOGY l [email protected] l www.ceh.ac.uk [i] This report should be cited as Marsh, T.J.1, Kirby, C.2, Muchan, K.1, Barker, L.1, Henderson, E.2 and Hannaford, J.1 2016. The winter floods of 2015/2016 in the UK - a review. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, UK. 37 pages. Affiliations: 1Centre for Ecology & Hydrology; 2British Hydrological Society. ISBN: 978-1-906698-61-4 Publication address Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Maclean Building Benson Lane Crowmarsh Gifford Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8BB UK General and business enquiries: +44 (0)1491 838800 E-mail: [email protected] [ii] The winter floods of 2015/2016 in the UK - a review THE WINTER FLOODS OF 2015/2016 IN THE UK – A REVIEW This report was produced by the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH), the UK’s centre for excellence for research in land and freshwater environmental sciences, in collaboration with the British Hydrological Society (BHS) which promotes all aspects of the inter-disciplinary subject of hydrology – the scientific study and practical applications of the movement, distribution and quality of freshwater in the environment. Funding support was provided by the Natural Environment Research Council. CEH and BHS are extremely grateful to the many individuals and organisations that provided data and background information for this publication.
  • Coastal Storms: Detailed Analysis of Observed Sea Level and Wave Events in the SCOPAC Region (Southern England)

    Coastal Storms: Detailed Analysis of Observed Sea Level and Wave Events in the SCOPAC Region (Southern England)

    SCOPAC RESEARCH PROJECT Coastal storms: detailed analysis of observed sea level and wave events in the SCOPAC region (southern England) Debris at Milford-on-Sea after the “Valentines Storm” February 2014. Copyright New Forest District Council. Date: December 2020 Version: 1.1 BCP - SCOPAC 2020 Rev 1.1 Document history SCOPAC Storm Analysis Study: Coastal storms: detailed analysis of observed sea level and wave events in the SCOPAC region (southern England) Project partners: • Bournemouth Christchurch Poole (BCP) Council / Dorset Coastal Engineering Partnership • Ocean & Earth Science, University of Southampton (UoS) • Coastal Partners (formerly Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership (ESCP)) Project Manager: Matthew Wadey (BCP Council) Funded: Standing Conference on Problems Associated with the Coastline (SCOPAC) Data analysis: Addina Inayatillah (UoS), Matthew Wadey (BCP/DCEP), Ivan Haigh (UoS), Emily Last (Coastal Partners) This document has been issued and amended as follows: Version Date Description Created by Verified by Approved by 1.0 16.11.20 SCOPAC Storm MW, AI, IH, SC Analysis Study EL 1.1 30.12.20 SCOPAC Storm MW, AI, IH, SC SCOPAC Analysis Study EL RSG BCP - SCOPAC 2020 Rev 1.1 SCOPAC Storm Analysis Study PROLOGUE Dear SCOPAC members, Our coastline is exposed to storm surges and swell waves from the Atlantic that as we know can result in flooding and erosion. Changing extreme sea levels and waves over time need to be assessed so risks can be understood; as both one-off events and as a consequence of successive events (“storm clustering”). The notable winter of 2013/14 saw repeated medium to high magnitude events prevailing over a relatively short time period.
  • Flood Risk Management in Kent Select Committee Report 2007

    Flood Risk Management in Kent Select Committee Report 2007

    Flood Risk Management in Kent Select Committee Report 2007 Kent County Council County Hall Maidstone ME14 1XQ 08458 247247 [email protected] 2 Contents Foreword ......................................................................................................................... 5 1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................. 7 1.1 Committee membership ..................................................................................... 7 1.2 Terms of Reference ........................................................................................... 7 1.3 Evidence gathering............................................................................................ 8 1.4 Visits .................................................................................................................. 8 1.5 Glossary of terms and acronyms........................................................................ 9 1.6 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 11 1.7 Summary of Recommendations ....................................................................... 13 2 National Policy Development.................................................................................. 17 3 Organisational Responsibilities............................................................................... 21 4 Funding for flood defences ....................................................................................
  • Sanitary Reform of London: the Working Collection of Sir Joseph Bazalgette, Ca

    Sanitary Reform of London: the Working Collection of Sir Joseph Bazalgette, Ca

    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/ft3x0nb131 No online items Guide to the Sanitary Reform of London: The Working Collection of Sir Joseph Bazalgette, ca. 1785-1969 Processed by Special Collections staff. Department of Special Collections Green Library Stanford University Libraries Stanford, CA 94305-6004 Phone: (650) 725-1022 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/spc/ © 2002 The Board of Trustees of Stanford University. All rights reserved. DA676 .S26 1785 1 Guide to the Sanitary Reform of London: The Working Collection of Sir Joseph Bazalgette, ca. 1785-1969 Collection number: DA676 .S26 1785 Department of Special Collections and University Archives Rare Book Division Stanford University Libraries Stanford, California Contact Information Department of Special Collections Green Library Stanford University Libraries Stanford, CA 94305-6004 Phone: (650) 725-1022 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/spc/ Processed by: Special Collections staff Encoded by: Steven Mandeville-Gamble © 2002 The Board of Trustees of Stanford University. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: Sanitary Reform of London: the working collection of Sir Joseph Bazalgette, Date (inclusive): ca. 1785-1969 Collection number: DA676 .S26 1785 Creator: Bazalgette, Joseph Extent: 455 items Repository: Stanford University. Libraries. Dept. of Special Collections and University Archives. Abstract: The collection documents the history of the sanitary evolution of London from the 1840s to the early twentieth century. Some 4500 separate printed, typescript, and manuscript items trace the stages by which the drainage and fresh water supply for London was introduced-- in its time perhaps the greatest feat of urban civil engineering that had ever been undertaken.
  • Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

    Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

    London Borough of Newham Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Version 5, September 2015 Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for the London Borough of Newham Document Management: Version Control Title: Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Filename: Newham LFRMS Draft v5 final.doc Issue/version no: Draft v5 Issue date: September 2015 Author: Massimo De Alexandris Version Issued Amendments 1 March 2015 Draft 2 April 2015 Draft for internal consultation 3 June 2015 Draft for external consultation 4 August 2015 Draft reviewed against EA and TW comments 5 September 2015 Final Draft updated with planning control and emergency planning pending items. All changes to this document will be tracked and recorded by the LLFA management team. It will be reviewed on an annual basis. However new risk assessment, lessons identified from incidents or exercises, restructuring of organisations or changes in key personnel will also prompt updates to the plan. 2 Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for the London Borough of Newham 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Legislative Context ................................................................................. 4 1.3 Local Partnerships ................................................................................. 5 2 Summary of Local Flood Risk .................................................................... 7 2.1 Definition of Flood Risk .......................................................................... 7
  • The Winter Floods of 2015/2016 in the UK - a Review

    The Winter Floods of 2015/2016 in the UK - a Review

    National Hydrological Monitoring Programme The winter floods of 2015/2016 in the UK - a review by Terry Marsh, Celia Kirby, Katie Muchan, Lucy Barker, Ed Henderson & Jamie Hannaford National Hydrological Monitoring Programme The winter floods of 2015/2016 in the UK - a review by Terry Marsh, Celia Kirby, Katie Muchan, Lucy Barker, Ed Henderson & Jamie Hannaford CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY & HYDROLOGY l [email protected] l www.ceh.ac.uk [i] This report should be cited as Marsh, T.J.1, Kirby, C.2, Muchan, K.1, Barker, L.1, Henderson, E.2 and Hannaford, J.1 2016. The winter floods of 2015/2016 in the UK - a review. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, UK. 37 pages. Affiliations: 1Centre for Ecology & Hydrology; 2British Hydrological Society. ISBN: 978-1-906698-61-4 Publication address Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Maclean Building Benson Lane Crowmarsh Gifford Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8BB UK General and business enquiries: +44 (0)1491 838800 E-mail: [email protected] [ii] The winter floods of 2015/2016 in the UK - a review THE WINTER FLOODS OF 2015/2016 IN THE UK – A REVIEW This report was produced by the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH), the UK’s centre for excellence for research in land and freshwater environmental sciences, in collaboration with the British Hydrological Society (BHS) which promotes all aspects of the inter-disciplinary subject of hydrology – the scientific study and practical applications of the movement, distribution and quality of freshwater in the environment. Funding support was provided by the Natural Environment Research Council. CEH and BHS are extremely grateful to the many individuals and organisations that provided data and background information for this publication.
  • Drainage Institutions in the Netherlands

    Drainage Institutions in the Netherlands

    Drainage Institutions in Public Disclosure Authorized Western Europe: England, the Netherlands, France and Germany Niranjan Pant Public Disclosure Authorized Irrigation and Water Engineering Wageningen University The Netherlands November 2000 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized © International Bank for Reconstruction & Development, 2002 Rural Development Department 1818 H Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 This paper was commissioned by the World Bank through the World Bank-Wageningen University Cooperative Programme. It was first printed in India as a CWP Working Paper Series. This paper carries the name of the author and should be used and cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions are the author’s own and should not attributed to the World Bank, its Board of Directors, its management, or any member countries. Preface This paper is one of a series of products created under a collaborative work program between the Rural Development Department of the World Bank, Washington D.C., and the Irrigation and Water Engineering Group at Wageningen University, the Netherlands. The program ran from 1999 to 2002 and was headed by Dr. Geert Diemer (World Bank) and Dr Peter P. Mollinga (Wageningen University). Dr. Mollinga served as primary editor for the series of products coming from this program. The activities in this program focused on participatory irrigation management. Through this cooperative program, Wageningen University staff participated in the Training of Trainers programs organized by International Network on Participatory Irrigation Management (INPIM) in Bari, Italy. The views expressed in the research papers are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the program coordinators; Wageningen University; or the World Bank or its Board of Executive Directors.