Opzet Draaiboek STAR-FLOOD
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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