Marleen van Rijswick

Toward legitimate governance strategies for climate adaptation in the Netherlands: combining insights from a legal, planning, and network perspective

In general, the issue of climate change is characterized by uncertainty, complexity, and multifacetedness. In the Netherlands, climate change is in above highly controversial. These characteristics make it difficult to realize adaptation measures that are perceived as legitimate. In this article, we analyze the main difficulties and dilemmas with regard to the issue of legitimacy in the context of climate adaptation. We conceptualize legitimacy from a legal, a planning, and a network perspective and show how the concept of legitimacy evolves within these three perspectives. From a legal perspective, the focus is on the issues of good governance. From a planning perspective, the focus is on the flexibility, learning, and governance capacity. From a network perspective, issues of dialogue, involvement, and support are important. These perspectives bring in different criteria, which are not easy compatible. We describe and illustrate these legitimacy challenges using an in-depth study of the Dutch IJsseldelta Zuid case. From our case study, we conclude that, from a legitimacy perspective, the often acclaimed necessity to be adaptive and flexible is quite problematic. The same holds true for the plea to mainstream adaptation into other policy domains. In our case study, these strategies give rise to serious challenges in relation to good governance and consensus—two indispensable cornerstones of legitimacy.

A method for the deliberate and deliberative selection of policy instrument mixes for climate change adaptation

Policy instruments can help put climate adaptation plans into action. Here, we propose a method for the systematic assessment and selection of policy instruments for stimulating adaptation action. The multi-disciplinary set of six assessment criteria is derived from economics, policy, and legal studies. These criteria are specified for the purpose of climate adaptation by taking into account four challenges to the governance of climate adaptation: uncertainty, spatial diversity, controversy, and social complexity. The six criteria and four challenges are integrated into a step-wise method that enables the selection of instruments starting from a generic assessment and ending with a specific assessment of policy instrument mixes for the stimulation of a specific adaptation measure. We then apply the method to three examples of adaptation measures. The methods merits lie in enabling deliberate choices through a holistic and comprehensive set of adaptation specific criteria, as well as deliberative choices by offering a stepwise method that structures an informed dialog on instrument selection. Although the method was created and applied by scientific experts, policy-makers can also use the method.

Ten building blocks for sustainable water governance: an integrated method to assess the governance of water

A three-step interdisciplinary method to assess approaches to water shortage, water quality and flood risks is presented. This method, based on water system analysis, economics, law and public administration, seeks to create common understanding based on newly developed concepts and definitions. First, generating content knowledge about the water system and about values, principles and policy discourses. Second, providing an organizational process with sufficient stakeholder involvement, insight into the trade-off between social objectives, and attribution of responsibilities in addition to regulations and agreements. Finally, implementing the agreed service level through adequate infrastructure, enforcement and conflict resolution.

Dealing with flood damages: will prevention, mitigation and ex-post compensation provide for a resilient triangle?

There is a wealth of literature on the design of ex post compensation mechanisms for natural disasters. However, more research needs to be done on the manner in which these mechanisms could steer citizens toward adopting individual-level preventive and protection measures in the face of flood risks. We have provided a comparative legal analysis of the financial compensation mechanisms following floods, be it through insurance, public funds, or a combination of both, with an empirical focus on Belgium, the Netherlands, England, and France. Similarities and differences between the methods in which these compensation mechanisms for flood damages enhance resilience were analyzed. The comparative analysis especially focused on the link between the recovery strategy on the one hand and prevention and mitigation strategies on the other. There is great potential within the recovery strategy for promoting preventive action, for example in terms of discouraging citizens from living in high-risk areas, or encouraging the uptake of mitigation measures, such as adaptive building. However, this large potential has yet to be realized, in part because of insufficient consideration and promotion of these connections within existing legal frameworks. We have made recommendations about how the linkages between strategies can be further improved. These recommendations relate to, among others, the promotion of resilient reinstatement through recovery mechanisms and the removal of legal barriers preventing the establishment of link-inducing measures.

Assessing the legitimacy of flood risk governance arrangements in Europe: insights from intra-country evaluations

ABSTRACT Legitimacy has received comparatively less attention than societal resilience in the context of flooding, thus methods for assessing and monitoring the legitimacy of flood risk governance arrangements are noticeably lacking. This study attempts to address this gap by assessing the legitimacy of flood risk governance arrangements in six European countries through cross-disciplinary and comparative research methods. On the basis of this assessment, recommendations to enhance the legitimacy of flood risk governance in Europe are presented.

How to Adapt Chemical Risk Assessment for Unconventional Hydrocarbon Extraction Related to the Water System

We identify uncertainties and knowledge gaps of chemical risk assessment related to unconventional drillings and propose adaptations. We discuss how chemical risk assessment in the context of unconventional oil and gas (UO&G) activities differs from conventional chemical risk assessment and the implications for existing legislation. A UO&G suspect list of 1,386 chemicals that might be expected in the UO&G water samples was prepared which can be used for LC-HRMS suspect screening. We actualize information on reported concentrations in UO&G-related water. Most information relates to shale gas operations, followed by coal-bed methane, while only little is available for tight gas and conventional gas. The limited research on conventional oil and gas recovery hampers comparison whether risks related to unconventional activities are in fact higher than those related to conventional activities. No study analyzed the whole cycle from fracturing fluid, flowback and produced water, and surface water and groundwater. Generally target screening has been used, probably missing contaminants of concern. Almost half of the organic compounds analyzed in surface water and groundwater exceed TTC values, so further risk assessment is needed, and risks cannot be waived. No specific exposure scenarios toward groundwater aquifers exist for UO&G-related activities. Human errors in various stages of the life cycle of UO&G production play an important role in the exposure. Neither at the international level nor at the US federal and the EU levels, specific regulations for UO&G-related activities are in place to protect environmental and human health. UO&G activities are mostly regulated through general environmental, spatial planning, and mining legislation.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Dutch Implementation of the Water Framework Directive

The Netherlands has a long and fascinating history of water management. The main features of the Dutch water governance system for the implementation of the wfd are its regional water authorities based on hydrological scales and powers to regulate, decide and raise taxes for their water tasks. Their functional approach and the decentralised character make the regional water authorities very efficient and effective. It is therefore understandable that eu institutions and other Member States consider the Dutch system an interesting potential source of inspiration for other jurisdictions. Yet, it is not all gold what shines. This paper highlights the strength and weakness elements of the Dutch water governance system under the wfd. It exposes several points of concern. When considering using the Dutch experience as a source of inspiration in other Member States, these concerns should be taken in due account.