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.
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Norwich Conference on Earth Systeam Governance |
| Place of Publication | Norwich, UK |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jul 2014 |
