Willemijn van Doorn-Hoekveld

The European union approach to flood risk management and improving societal resilience : Lessons from the implementation of the Floods Directive in six European countries

Diversity in flood risk management approaches is often considered to be a strength. However, in some national settings, and especially for transboundary rivers, variability and incompatibility of a ...

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.

Dealing with change and uncertainty within the regulatory frameworks for flood defense infrastructure in selected European countries

Whereas existing literature on the interactions among law, adaptive governance, and resilience in the water sector often focuses on quality or supply issues, this paper addresses adaptation in national water laws in relation to increasing flood risks. In particular, this paper analyzes the extent to which legal rules governing flood defense infrastructure in a selection of European countries (England, France, Sweden, and The Netherlands) allow for response and adaptation to change and uncertainty. Although there is evidence that the legal rules on the development of new infrastructure require that changing conditions be considered, the adaptation of existing infrastructure is a more complicated matter. Liability rules fail to adequately address damages resulting from causes external to the action or inaction of owners and managers, in particular extreme events. A trend toward clearer, and in some cases, increased public powers to ensure the safety of flood defense infrastructure is observed. The paper concludes that legal rules should ensure not only that decisions to build flood defenses are based on holistic and future-oriented assessments, but also that this is reflected in the implementation and operation of these structures.

Distributional effects of flood risk management—a cross-country comparison of preflood compensation

We seek to examine the manner in which either the EU member states of France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden or parts of them, such as the country of England in the UK or the Flemish Region in ...

Equal distribution of burdens in flood risk management : The application of the 'égalité principle' in the compensation regimes of the Netherlands, Flanders and France

Flood risk management is an eminent example of a policy field in which the distribution of burdens and benefits takes place. Flood risks are distributed unequally among society and measures that reduce or prevent flood risks also distribute burdens and benefits. Flood risk management measures may infringe property rights that are protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (art. 17 in conjunction with art. 52 (3) and European Convention on Human Rights (art. 1 First Protocol). The Charter and the Convention are a safety net for these infringements and form a basic demand of the domestic compensation regimes. The underlying principle of these European, but also domestic compensation regimes can be found in the French principle egalite devant les charges publiques [equality before public burdens]. A compensation regime can mitigate adverse effects of flood risk management. This paper scrutinises the domestic compensation regimes of the Netherlands, Flanders and France for loss caused by flood prevention and flood protection and flood recovery measures. It shows that burdens are unequally distributed, not only between the three jurisdictions, but also within the jurisdictions. It also shows that the egalite principle is not applied in a consistent way.

Analysis of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Dutch Water Storage Areas as a Legal Instrument for Flood-risk Prevention

New flood risks require a new flood risk management approach. In the Netherlands there has always been a strong focus on flood defence. However, flood defence in the form of dikes alone will not be sufficient to keep the Netherlands habitable in the future. The ‘Room for Water’ debate has led to a new legal instrument: water storage areas, which fits perfectly in one of the requirements of the Floods Directive. This relatively new instrument has its own legal framework that is embedded in water law as well as in spatial planning law. This paper analyses the legal framework of the Dutch water storage areas in order to provide a SWOT analysis that may serve other states that aim to improve their flood risk management strategies.