IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE

Irrig. and Drain. 55: S159–S171 (2006) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ird.251

INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT: EXPERIENCES OF 13 COUNTRIES WITH THEIR IMPLEMENTATION AND DAY-TO-DAY MANAGEMENTy,z JOS VAN ALPHEN1* AND QUIRIJN LODDER2 1

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Rijkswaterstaat, National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management, the Hague, the Netherlands 2 Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Rijkswaterstaat, Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment/RIZA, Lelystad, the Netherlands

ABSTRACT Within the context of the 3rd International Symposium on Flood Defence (ISFD3), May 25–27, 2005 in the Netherlands, a special session was organized for chief executive officers (CEOs) of organizations in 13 countries all over the world, responsible for flood management. The purpose was to exchange experiences with their implementation of integrated flood management and day-to-day management. Although countries differ considerably with respect to the flood problems they encounter and their socio-economic and organizational settings, some common issues emerged: the challenge of translating a risk-based approach on a basin-wide level into concrete measures, accountability and improving flood risk awareness, harmonizing flood risk management policy with land use planning, institutional cooperation, and coping with maintenance budget shortages. The special session was concluded with recommendations for management and research. This paper elaborates on the main issues discussed and concluded upon during the meeting of the CEOs. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. key words: practical implementation of flood management strategies; integrated flood management

RE´SUME´ Dans le cadre du 3e`me colloque international sur la protection contre les inondations (ISFD3, Pays-Bas, 25–27 mai 2005), une session spe´ciale a e´te´ organise´e pour les dirigeants d’organismes de gestion d’inondation dans 13 pays du monde. Le but e´tait d’e´changer leurs expe´riences de la pratique de gestion inte´gre´e des inondations et de la gestion au jour le jour. Bien que ces pays diffe`rent conside´rablement en ce qui concerne les proble`mes d’inondation qu’ils rencontrent ainsi qu’en matie`re de socio-e´conomie et d’organisation, quelques traits communs ont e´merge´: de´fi consistant a` traduire une approche base´e sur le risque a` l’e´chelle d’un bassin en mesures concre`tes, responsabilite´ et conscience du risque d’inondation, harmonisation de la gestion des risques d’inondation avec la planification d’occupation de l’espace, coope´ration institutionnelle, et confrontation a` des budgets de maintenance insuffisants. La session spe´ciale s’est conclue sur des recommandations pour la gestion et la recherche. Cet article pre´sente les principales discussions et conclusions de cette session. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. mots cle´s: pratique concre`te des strate´gies de gestion d’inondation; gestion inte´gre´e des inondations

* Correspondence to: J. van Alphen, Rijkswaterstaat, National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management, P. O. Box 20907, 2500 EX, the Hague, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] y Gestion inte´gre´e des inondations: expe´rience pratique et gestion quotidienne de treize pays. z This paper is based on the discussions and results of a meeting of 13 chief executive officers, responsible for flood management in their respective countries, as published in: Floods, from Defence to Management. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Flood Defence, 25–27 May 2005, Nijmegen, the Netherlands by Alphen, J. van, E. van Beek and M. Taal, A.A. Taylor & Francis/Balkema Publishers, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 7 March 2006 Revised 10 April 2006 Accepted 14 April 2006

S160

J. VAN ALPHEN AND Q. LODDER

INTRODUCTION Within the context of the 3rd International Symposium on Flood Defence (ISFD3), May 25–27, 2005, held in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, the Director-General of the Dutch Rijkswaterstaat (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management), Mr Bert Keijts, invited colleagues from 13 countries all over the world to exchange experiences with the implementation of flood risk management policies and day-to-day management. Representatives at chief executive officer (CEO) level, respectively from Argentina, Bangladesh, China, Croatia, Flanders (Belgium), Hungary, Indonesia, Japan, Romania, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States of America and Vietnam, participated in a one-day high-level meeting on integrated flood management. (Note: The CEO conference took place some four months after the tsunami in SE Asia and some three months before hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the USA. Since then, on the entire globe the ‘‘flood management’’ issue has been evolving rapidly.) The purpose of this meeting was:
to exchange knowledge of, and experiences with, the implementation of integrated flood management action programmes;
to identify future demands for research in integrated flood management;
to find partners to cooperate with on topics of mutual interest. The focus of the meeting was on riverine flooding. Where relevant, experiences involving coastal zone flood management were included. To prepare this meeting, all participating countries delivered country papers describing: the flood problems they face; the policies adopted; planning and design of measures; their experiences with implementation and day-to-day management; research, monitoring and evaluation. This Special Journal paper is a synthesis of these country papers: the main points raised by these countries are summarized. In addition, ten common issues are identified. Five of them were discussed during the meeting, resulting in recommendations for future research and integrated flood management.

FLOODING PROBLEM CHARACTERISTICS The 13 countries face a wide variety of flood problems and have differing capacities to deal with these problems. Some countries are situated in temperate and monsoon-like climates, or have mountainous or flat floodplain-like features. Bangladesh has extensive floods every year, covering up to 30–60% of the country, whereas the Netherlands experienced real devastating floods for the last time in 1926 (rivers) and 1953 (storm surge). Several sources of floods were identified: floods that occur regularly in relation to yearly monsoon rainfall (Bangladesh, China, Vietnam), or as sudden flash floods after torrential rains in mountainous areas (Argentina, Bangladesh, China, Croatia, Flanders, Indonesia, Japan, USA, UK, Vietnam). In addition, floods may occur as rare events due to unusual combinations of rainfall and soil conditions (prolonged rainfall in combination with frozen karst or saturated soils, poor drainage or drainage congestion due to high river or sea levels, e.g. during typhoons or hurricanes (Croatia, Japan, USA). And floods occur due to embankment failure, e.g. due to poor maintenance (Croatia), inadequate construction and/or poor design (failures can occur everywhere) or riverbank erosion (Bangladesh). Flood damage is most pronounced in urban areas, where high densities of people, assets and vulnerable infrastructure occur (Buenos Aires, Dhaka, Jakarta, Japanese cities, Croatian and Chinese floodplains). Extremely dangerous are low-lying polders behind embanked rivers, where flood levels may be 5–10 m above ground level. This situation occurs in the river deltas of the Netherlands, China, Japan, USA and Bangladesh. Another view is how vulnerable countries with flood-prone zones are in terms of casualties. Countries such as Bangladesh and China have suffered major flooding disasters, with a combined total of at least 2.5 million casualties in the past 100 years. In Europe, the loss of life has been a matter of thousands in the past century. In the Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Irrig. and Drain. 55: S159–S171 (2006)

EXPERIENCES WITH INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT

S161

last decade, in terms of casualties, major riverine flooding has occurred in Vietnam in 1997 (3000), Bangladesh in 1998 (1100), and China in 1998 (1320). In economic terms, major floods of the past decade were along the Mississippi (1993, US$21 billion), Yangtze (1998, US$30 billion) and in Central Europe (2002, about US$20 billion). In terms of GNP loss, the most devastating floods occur in developing countries: the 1998 and 2004 floods in Bangladesh caused damage of US$2.8 and 2.2 billion, about 7% of its GNP. In China flood damage accounts for 1–3% of its GNP every year, whereas in Japan it accounts for about 0.1%. The wealth of a country is indicative of the funds available to be spent on flood protection and can be described in terms of annual income per capita. In the countries concerned, this varies from less than US$ 2000 in Bangladesh to about US$ 40 000 in the USA. Japan, the Netherlands and China show a remarkable reduction in flood events, the result of protective measures (embankments, storage basins). Such reductions generate rapid urban and economic development within the protected areas, and a sharp increase in the potential for damage. As a result, yearly flood damage figures in Japan have remained stable over the last 25 years. The low frequency of flooding achieved is decreasing public awareness and its willingness to cooperate/take responsibility for flood protection. Most countries expect flood problems to increase in the future, owing to a combination of population growth (especially in flood-prone areas), an increase in land and asset value, watershed degradation and climate change. Most countries report (Argentina) or expect (China, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Croatia, UK, Vietnam, Japan) trends in rainfall and flooding problems related to climate change. Japan has observed the ‘‘urban heat island effect’’ as an additional, aggravating phenomenon in large urbanized areas. In most countries, further research is planned.

POLICY AND RELATED INSTRUMENTS All countries have policies to protect themselves against floods or manage them, but they often differ in policy goals and approach. Examples of policy goals are:
The Netherlands: To have and maintain a safe and habitable country and to develop and maintain healthy and resilient water systems, which will continue to guarantee sustained use;
Croatia: To achieve economically justified protection levels for people, their property, traffic routes, infrastructure systems, agricultural and industrial surfaces and other endangered values while encouraging conservation and improvement of ecological status of watercourses and floodplains, and creating conditions for further economic development;
UK: To manage the risks from flooding () by employing an integrated portfolio of approaches that reflect both national and local priorities, so as to reduce the threat to people and their property and to deliver the greatest environmental, social economic benefit, consistent with the government’s sustainable development practices. To secure efficient and reliable funding mechanisms that deliver the levels of investment required. Often these policies have a catchment approach in common and consist of the following elements (but with different accents):
Spatial planning, to stimulate water-retaining land use in upstream areas (China, Croatia) and prevent development in flood-prone areas downstream, the latter gradually becoming risk based (Flanders, the Netherlands);
Protective measures, like embankments/dikes (almost everywhere). As the value of the assets under threat grows and as more funds become available, expensive protection measures such as dams, diversions and retention basins are included. China, Japan and Croatia have gained experience in the multiple use of such areas, e.g. for agriculture, recreation, wetland or urban development (flood-proof Yokohama stadium in Tsurumi retention area); Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Irrig. and Drain. 55: S159–S171 (2006)

S162

J. VAN ALPHEN AND Q. LODDER


Early warning and civil defence, in almost any country, organized at different administrative levels by different kind of organizations;
Insurance against flood damage (USA, Flanders, UK). In Flanders and the UK, these elements are integrated in a so-called risk-based approach, in Flanders making an explicit distinction between measures focusing on prevention, protection, preparedness, response and recovery. Although all the aforementioned elements also exist in the USA, there is no central or basin-level flood management policy; this is due to the heavy emphasis on states’ rights. As a result of the major floods in the last decade, policies in the USA (1993), the Netherlands (2000), China (2003), Japan (2003), Bangladesh (2004), Flanders, Indonesia and the UK (draft) have been revised and are now based on a flood management approach, known as the ‘‘Room for Rivers’’ principle. This means more emphasis on non-structural measures like spatial planning (to stop encroachment on floodplains) and flood-proof building, in addition to mitigation measures and structural measures. To improve the quality of decision-making, most countries include public and/or stakeholder participation in policy development. Some countries have advisory boards for policy development at national level, including representatives from other ministries, authorities and stakeholders (Argentina: the Federal Water Council; Bangladesh: the National Water Resources Council; the Netherlands and Flanders: Commissions on Integrated Water Management). These boards:
bring flood policies into line with water management as a whole (flood, drought, water shortage: China, Bangladesh, the Netherlands);
bring flood policies into line with other policy fields, such as physical planning, environmental protection, forest management, inland navigation (Croatia), agriculture and fisheries (Bangladesh);
enhance acceptance by the public and stakeholder organizations (Flanders, Romania, the Netherlands).

Organization Policy development and implementation require the involvement of many organizations and demand clearly defined responsibilities and mandates. In many countries, the authority is divided between an organization responsible for policy development (often a ministry), and one or more organizations responsible for implementation, maintenance and day-to-day management (an agency, or a set of public organizations ranging from the national to the regional and local level). This setting requires coordination and cooperation during all the various phases: policy development, planning and execution of measures and disaster management. Clear definitions and procedures are essential in disaster management, which is well organized in most countries (see hereafter). In the USA, due to the high emphasis on states’ rights, the national (federal) government plays a supportive role: it issues guidelines, provides early warning, creates national data sets and assumes leadership. A more or less similar situation exists in Argentina.

Legislation The countries differ considerably when it comes to the legal basis for flood management. Argentina has no specific law on flood management. The Civil Code establishes as a general principle that whoever causes harm to others will have to give redress and provide for compensation. In addition, numerous restrictions and regulations at the provincial level are in force. Enforcement is usually difficult when economic conditions favour unsustainable practices, because public agencies are underfunded. As a consequence, many conflicts occur that cannot be solved in court, are time-consuming and end in unpredictable outcomes. Argentina is considering special courts for water-related problems (in addition to the development of a sense of community and shared values). Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Irrig. and Drain. 55: S159–S171 (2006)

EXPERIENCES WITH INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT

S163

Bangladesh needs to harmonize and improve consistency in its different floodplain and flood management laws. Work is in progress on framing a National Water Code. In China, national laws and regulations grant power to provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities to make their respective implementation rules. New legislation is needed to implement the flood management concept, e.g. to manage flood diversion and retention areas (how to estimate compensation, preparation of emergency plans). Croatia has a Water Act (Integrated Water Management) and Water Management Financing Act. The division between state and local waters, and the different modes of financing, hinders integrated water management. For disaster management Croatia has an Act on Protection and Rescue. Flanders has a Federal Law on disaster management (with obligatory insurance for all civilians) and a Law dealing with Integrated Water Management to improve cooperation and coordination between all water managers. Legislation is needed to implement flood risk management safety standards. Hungary has the Act on Disaster Management and the Act on Water Management. However, there are harmonization problems between these Acts. Indonesia has adopted the 7/2004 Law that stipulates that river basins should be managed at river basin level (‘‘one river, one plan, one coordinated management’’). Until now, some two coordinating bodies have been established, only for the Brantas and Citarun basins. The Law also delineates water management responsibilities for basins of different scales: basins within one district are managed by the district, basins larger than one district are managed by a province, basins larger than a province or with a strategic national interest are managed by DG Water Resources Agency. Water resources councils are envisaged to provide a suitable platform for negotiation between the different water interests. They should consist of representatives from government agencies and relevant stakeholders, and be supported by skilled managers. Japan has a comprehensive set of laws dealing with flood management: the River Law, Flood Defence Law, Sewerage Law, and City Plan Law. In conjunction with the revised policy, the Urban River Inundation Damage Countermeasure Act took effect in 2004. This law prescribes the drawing up of a comprehensive flood management plan for a river basin designated as an Urban River (i.e. a river that can cause extreme flood damage). Romania has two important recently updated laws: the Law on Disasters and the Law on Waters. The Law on Disasters regulates the liability of the state and local bodies during disasters. The Law on Waters regulates the system of flood defence, the installation of basin committees and the economic mechanism in water management. The UK has three important laws (the Water Resources Act, the Land Drainage Act and the Environment Act), which need to be strengthened with regard to spatial planning (Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for regional spatial strategies). The USA has a comprehensive set of laws dealing with flood management: Flood Control Act, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), National Environment Policy Act, Executive Order 11998 (requires federal agencies to provide leadership during flood disaster situations), and the National Response Plan. Vietnam has the Water Act, Land Use Act, Environment Protection Law and Ordinances on dike management and flooding. Flood risk management elements are now integrated. The Netherlands has an Integrated Water Management Act, as well as a Flood Protection Act. The latter specifies safety standards and prescribes regular assessment of protection works. In addition there is a Law on Disaster Management, defining responsibilities and preparative measures. Financial compensation for damage due to floods is under evaluation.

Insurance Since absolute safety against floods is impossible, it should be accepted that flooding might occur now and again. Disaster management and flood-proof building do much to reduce the damage, but even then, households, farmers and production facilities may suffer major financial losses. To recover from the flood, they need assistance in the form of damage compensation. New ideas about this are emerging in some countries, while others have already taken relevant steps. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Irrig. and Drain. 55: S159–S171 (2006)

S164

J. VAN ALPHEN AND Q. LODDER

In the USA, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP, established in 1968) makes insurance available to 20 000 communities who participate in the programme by adopting and enforcing floodplain management ordinances to reduce flood damage. In Flanders, the federal Ministry of Internal Affairs compensates for damage when flooding is categorized as an official disaster, i.e. when it is a 25-year flood as a minimum. In China, as a first step, people living in retention or diversion areas are compensated for property damage and crop loss when these areas are inundated. Depending on these experiences, flood insurance may be popularized all over the country, but compulsory measures may be needed. In the UK, the Environment Agency (EA) is on good terms with the insurance industry when it comes to promoting sustainable development policies.

PLANNING AND DESIGN Safety standards Implementing a flood policy by taking concrete measures requires safety standards. Since absolute safety is impossible, such standards express the level of safety that should be guaranteed. That level is based on a political decision in which the effort to protect is balanced against the damage that might occur if protection fails. Most countries have adopted an approach in which safety standards are expressed as the frequency or the return period of a flood. In China, major rivers normally flood every 20 years; with flood diversion and retention areas in use, the protection level has increased to 20–50-year floods. In Croatia, there are no official standards, but it is standard practice to defend towns with over 30 000 inhabitants along major rivers against 1000-year floods, smaller towns along major rivers and settlements on other rivers against 100-year floods, and agricultural lands against 20–50-year floods. In Indonesia rural areas are protected against 25-year floods. Urban areas have a protection level of once every 50 years, whereas specific areas of high investment are protected against 100-year floods. In the Netherlands, the central low-lying Randstad area, with the nation’s capital and other major cities, is protected against a 10 000-year (coastal) flood, whereas other polders have a protection level ranging from 4000 (coast and estuaries) to 1250 (rivers) year floods. The Netherlands and Flanders are exploring methods to formulate safety standards on the risk of flooding (i.e. probability  damage). Flanders also includes a social cost/benefit analysis, which allows the benefits of protective measures to be weighed up against their social cost. Romania uses a return period of 20 years for rural areas, 50 years for urban areas and 100 years for hydropower dams. The UK has already adopted a risk-based approach, which is included in a Project Appraisal Guidance (PAG). Priorities for funding consider social and environmental issues in addition to economic return. For different types of land use indicative return periods range from 50–200 years (intensively developed urban areas) to 2.5 years (lowgrade agricultural land, with isolated properties at risk). In the USA, the local authorities control safety standards. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires protection against a 100-year flood to participate in the NFIP. Safety standards are not based on real-estate values. In Argentina, there are neither national nor provincial safety standards; instead, a selection of international standards applies. In Vietnam, a classification system exists for flood defence systems, varying from a flood occurring as an average 1:25 years to 1:200 years.

Types of measures All countries have structural and non-structural measures as shown in the review in Table I. Combinations depend on the type of flood, land use and availability of funds. Non-structural measures, for example early warning, Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Irrig. and Drain. 55: S159–S171 (2006)

S165

EXPERIENCES WITH INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT

Table I. Structural and non-structural measures in the 13 countries, in the context of integrated flood management Argentina Bangladesh China Croatia Flanders Hungary Indonesia Japan Netherlands Romania UK USA Vietnam Dams/reservoirs Barriers Retention Embankments Diversions Pumping stations Land use zoning Flood-proof buildings Early warning Flood fighting Surface erosion control Awareness building

þ

þ þ

þ

þ þ

þ þ þ þ

þ

þ

þ þ þ þ þ

þ þ þ

þ þ þ

þ þ þ

þ þ þ

þ

þ

þ

þ þ þ þ þ

? þ

þ þ

þ þ þ þ þ þ

þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ

þ

þ

þ

þ þ

þ þ

þ

þ þ

þ þ þ

þ þ þ þ þ þ þ

þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ

þ þ þ þ

þ þ þ þ

flood defence, flood-proof building and land use, are relatively cheap and an effective way to limit damage when flood frequency cannot be reduced. The first (structural) measure generally taken to limit flood frequency is the construction of embankments. When more funds become available, more expensive measures such as retention areas and diversions are built. If the terrain is suitable, dams/reservoirs are used in upstream areas. Mountainous areas can also make surface erosion control measures/forestry necessary. As a result, flood frequency is reduced further. In the Netherlands, the frequency of flooding is that low that there has been little effort expended on developing non-structural measures (flood-proof building, early warning, flood defence). Flood protection measures may have a major impact on the environment. Bangladesh, Argentina, the Netherlands and the UK prescribe that environmental aspects must be dealt with during the preparations and design of such measures, e.g. in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE Many countries have specific organizations for flood management and the maintenance of flood protection works (UK: Environment Agency/EA; Croatia: Croatian Water/CW). In Bangladesh and the Netherlands, the respective organizations (Bangladesh Water Development Board/BWDB; Rijkswaterstaat/RWS) are in a transitional phase into these roles (and downsizing as a result). The organizations cooperate with other authorities at regional and local levels. In addition, they are in direct contact with relevant population, stakeholders, contractors, and of course the population living in the protected zones. Policy implementation at regional level is often difficult, mainly due to the lack of formal power where national bodies are responsible, or due to confusion and misunderstanding of responsibilities between the river manager authorities and other authorities at various lower levels (regional, local). In Argentina, for example, provinces are responsible for the planning and execution of measures, while the federal authorities (Water Resources Under Secretariat, SSRH) can and will only act when asked for advice or for a specific budget. A Federal Water Council, consisting of representatives of all 24 provinces and the SSRH, is expected to improve coordination. In the UK, the Environment Agency may be asked for advice by local authorities when they have to decide on applications for new development in floodplains, but that advice may or may not be taken into consideration. In the Netherlands, the Rijkswaterstaat is responsible for development and maintenance of the infrastructure of the main rivers, estuaries and coastline. The water boards are responsible at regional level; the provinces, which in turn are supervised by the State Secretary of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, supervise them. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Irrig. and Drain. 55: S159–S171 (2006)

S166

J. VAN ALPHEN AND Q. LODDER

The Bangladesh Water Development Board is more or less similar to the Rijkswaterstaat. Both organizations face the problem that effective implementation depends on local and regional spatial planning, which is not their primary competency. China and Japan both have strong organizations on a catchment level; China has seven river basin commissions, while Japan has at least 17. In Romania, the national administration of Romanian Waters is responsible for water management. The regional branches are organized on a basin-wide basis. There are formal river basin commissions. In Indonesia, the district authorities are responsible for water management in small basins within their district. When a basin is located in more than one district, the province is responsible, and when it is located in more than one province, DG Water Resources is responsible. Indonesia has established two Basin Water Management Authorities (Brantas and Citarun). They operate without funding, their budgets being based on cost recovery from beneficiaries. In addition, problems may arise due to:
lack of legislation (or administrative power to enforce existing legislation) with respect to floodplain management (prohibit or remove illegal vegetation, constructions, sand extraction); this includes lack of adequate supervision and effective enforcement;
unclear distinction between waters of different hierarchy (state and local waters), each with their own funding mechanisms. Some countries have solved this problem by introducing an Integrated Water Management Act (Bangladesh, Netherlands, Flanders) and related Flood Protection Acts. Argentina promotes public awareness and develops a sense of community and shared values among people and the creation of specialized courts for water-related problems;
the undervaluing of maintenance, resulting in budget shortages. This is a widespread problem. The UK, the Netherlands, Bangladesh and Croatia prepare medium-term water management plans at national and catchment level, maintenance plans and programmes, with explicit criteria for prioritization. As a result, in 2003 almost 92% of all flood defences in England and Wales were assessed to be in fair, good or very good condition. Indonesia has gained experience with River and River Infrastructure Management Plans (RIM). Based on this assessment, annual updates of required maintenance are produced. In Argentina, the National Government promoted the creation of an Emergency Fund for Flood Management (2001), based on a specific surcharge on fuel consumption. This Fund is allotted to projects proposed by provincial water management agencies, but they have to meet specific criteria. Budget prioritization, however, is a short-term affair; there are no budgets for the medium and long term;
a decrease of skilled staff, the result of downsizing the organization and/or the retirement of employees. The UK and the Netherlands report a serious problem in this respect. The UK is attempting to solve this problem by promoting a university degree programme in flood risk management;
the need for innovative project designs; engineers tend to avoid change and must be reminded to try new methods and techniques (USA);
contaminated soil, causing public opposition, high costs and long procedures, as experienced at least in the Netherlands.

Public participation In many countries, public opposition delays the implementation of policy. To overcome this, public participation at an early stage is a prerequisite; the public should be aware of the necessity of executing the measures concerned. New measures must be devised to engage stakeholders in decision-making (USA). Flood maps are a powerful instrument to increase public awareness (UK). In addition, there should be procedures that guarantee the involvement of the public and stakeholders. In the UK, active methods—for example forums and exhibitions—are prescribed. The Netherlands and Romania have gained experience with workshops in which stakeholders and authorities together design acceptable flood protection measures, within the hydraulic boundaries defined by the Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Irrig. and Drain. 55: S159–S171 (2006)

EXPERIENCES WITH INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT

S167

river manager. Indonesia and some Javanese provinces have set up water management committees for regular stakeholder consultation. The level of performance of these bodies mainly depends on personal initiative. In accordance with Law7/2004 these councils will be replaced by water resources councils at provincial and district level, and possibly also at basin level. They will comprise stakeholders and government agencies.

Early warning and disaster management River management authorities have specific tasks when it comes to early warning and disaster management. They therefore need accurate data on water levels, cross sections, elevation and land use. They therefore:
perform water level measurements and cross section surveys;
provide flood forecast and warnings in combination with meteorological services (radar, satellite) (e.g. 2 h lead time for flash floods in upstream areas and 48–72 h lead time as a minimum for riverine floods; – in Argentina along the Parana: 20 days; – in the UK, the warnings differentiate between Flood Watch, Flood Warning and Severe Flood Warning; – In Bangladesh the warnings are expressed in Danger Levels: Normal (50 cm  DL), Moderate (0–50 cm  DL), Severe (>50 cm þ DL). To be effective, accurate flood warnings must be issued to the public in time. In Croatia and the UK, real-time data are available on Teletext, on Internet sites and on mobile phones. However, in the UK only 35% of the target group subscribes to this flood warning service. The UK 24 h Floodline Service also provides advice on what to do before, during and after a flood. In Indonesia the weakest link is getting information to the village communities affected. Moreover, systems based on telemetry seem to fail because of poor maintenance and inadequate staff; traditional gauges combined with radio are more effective. In the USA, for the New Orleans area, the accurate forecasting horizon is shorter than the time required for full evacuation. Only low-lying, unprotected areas are therefore ordered to evacuate. It appears, however, that people’s responses are governed by past experiences; they tend to delay their departure until it is too late. This is a significant concern to emergency planners. In Japan, it was observed that people who are familiar with hazard maps evacuate 1 h earlier than those who do not. Disaster management is a specific task in which many parties are involved. The different countries have adopted differing coordination systems:





in Croatia, the organization National Protection and Rescue Directorate is responsible for coordination; in the UK, the local police decides upon evacuation; in Romania the mayor coordinates during disasters; in Bangladesh, the duties and responsibilities of parties involved at all levels are covered in the Standing Order for Disaster Management;
in China, it is the governor of the administrative region and finally the State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters. In addition, national laws and regulations in China state that any organization or individual has a duty and obligation to join in flood emergency activities, resulting in a large number of volunteers;
in Flanders, Indonesia and the Netherlands, it is (depending on the magnitude of the flood) the local authority, a provincial authority or, finally, a national body which provides central coordination;
in Vietnam, disaster management relies heavily on local action, the so-called ‘‘four on the spot’’ policy: manpower, material, command and logistics. However, disaster preparedness and mitigation skills need further improvement. To support disaster management, decision support systems are under construction in e.g. China and the Netherlands. These systems combine different elements: (1) flood and digital terrain data on flood risk maps for the Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Irrig. and Drain. 55: S159–S171 (2006)

S168

J. VAN ALPHEN AND Q. LODDER

planning phase (Flanders, UK), (2) inundation risk patterns (depth, extent, progress), (3) the effect of different flood dispatch and evacuation strategies during a disaster or near-disaster situation. As a post-disaster measure, the UK has taken the initiative of creating a ‘‘one-stop shop’’ for flood victims.

MONITORING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Monitoring Most countries have extensive monitoring networks (automatic stage gauges). Many countries (UK, Argentina, China), are improving the monitoring networks and models to enhance flood forecast performance. In Flanders, Bangladesh, the Netherlands, Hungary, Romania and Croatia, with their major transboundary rivers, improvement depends on close international cooperation with upstream services in the catchment area. A problem in many countries is the absence of long-term records, which hampers statistical analyses and an understanding of processes operating at catchment scale. The UK and the Netherlands are currently filling in the missing link of accurate crest levels of defence works. Indonesia needs a standardized database for flood damage in order to relate it to flood causes and to assess required measures.

Research Flood risk management requires new knowledge, e.g. on risk computations, flood-proof constructions, and methods of urban planning compatible with flood management. Japan concentrates on the interaction between ground surface and underground flood analysis, including sewerage–drainage relationships. Flanders (Hydrological Information Centre/HIC), Croatia, and the UK (Flood Risk Management Research Consortium) describe research programmes. The European Union funds some international research programmes such as FLOODSITE. In the USA, improvement of flood protection projects is a shared responsibility, mainly coordinated at the local level (e.g. by the Association of State Floodplain Managers).

Evaluation Flood policies in Japan and the Netherlands were evaluated in 2003 and 2004. In both cases, it was concluded that protective measures reduced the frequency and extent of flooding, but the increased damage potential per km2 has resulted in a stable or rising flood damage figure per year. More effort must be put into damage mitigation, e.g. to improve the coverage and presentation of flood risk maps, better dissemination of information on flood-proof buildings (Japan), and flood defence operations and land use planning (Netherlands). In the UK, major flood events are evaluated through ‘‘lessons learned reviews’’. Argentina and Flanders have no legislation or procedures imposing regular evaluation of actual flood management.

COMMON ISSUES The country papers and the foregoing synthesis have revealed some common issues, as follows.

(a) Frameworks ‘‘Implementation of flood risk management concept’’. There is a worldwide tendency to include a ‘‘risk-based approach’’ in flood protection. It means that flood management organizations may face a different way of working; they may take on another role and need to speak the risk language. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Irrig. and Drain. 55: S159–S171 (2006)

EXPERIENCES WITH INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT

S169

(b) Role and responsibility
‘‘Implementation of the accountability concept’’. There is a worldwide tendency to consider or reconsider the roles (and accountability) of central government, private persons and companies, and the financial sector (insurance) in flood protection.
‘‘Interpretation of the role as ‘public servant’/public service organization’’. Flood management organizations are in daily contact with the (protected) people and with other stakeholders. Those parties have become more and more mature and critical. At the same time flood management organizations have limited financial sources.

(c) Integrated flood management
‘‘Basin-wide flood management (particularly on an international scale)’’. Flood management should be based on a catchment approach. This requires international cooperation, and an organization that is focused on this system level, with capabilities and instruments to manage stakeholders with different interests in different locations along the river. Flood management must be an essential part of integrated water management in a river basin.
‘‘Harmonizing flood protection policy with spatial planning’’. Effective flood management depends on adequate harmonization with spatial planning, during policy development and during policy execution (e.g. permits, enforcement). To this purpose, standards on safety and priorities on land use must be balanced.
‘‘Institutional cooperation (particularly national)’’. Effective flood management demands cooperation between many parties at the national, regional and local level. In most countries this creates problems with respect to coordination and competence (who is doing what, and why).

(d) Organizational requirements
‘‘Required legislation’’. Flood management requires appropriate legislation.
‘‘Future management and maintenance’’. The long-term effectiveness of flood protection works depends on adequate management during periods when politicians and the public show little interest. This type of organization therefore finds it important to select measures that are relatively independent of maintenance budgets.
‘‘Stimulation of innovations in management’’. Adequate flood protection requires new methods and techniques. However, innovation is difficult (to be implemented into practice).
‘‘Knowledge management’’. Flood protection spans the ages, and will be vital to societies in the future as well. For management organizations that are responsible for flood protection, it is essential to preserve and pass on experience and expertise and to organize research into future problems in good time.

RECOMMENDATIONS Out of the above listed 10 common issues, 5 topics were discussed during the CEO meeting of representatives from 13 countries, e.g.:






Integrated flood risk management; Basin-wide management; Institutional cooperation; Accountability; Spatial planning.

All the participants have accepted and (are planning to) practise the concept of flood risk management, although its (effective) implementation differs from one country to another. It is agreed that the risk-based approach comprises more than only dike height. Other important factors are, for instance, geotechnical stability, strength of the flow and uncertainty in modelling. Multiple probability analyses are therefore necessary. It is difficult to Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Irrig. and Drain. 55: S159–S171 (2006)

S170

J. VAN ALPHEN AND Q. LODDER

communicate risks to the public and politicians. It is extremely important to get the message across an entire society (and amongst politicians in charge!) that floods cannot be avoided. There is no such thing as ‘‘absolute safety’’ in the flood management of a feature of nature like rivers and the sea. This message should be communicated in terms that the public understands. The advice is: keep it simple. Basin-wide management requires international information sharing. Unfortunately, funding sometimes causes inefficiency. River commissions are an effective forum for information exchange, but they are less effective for basin-wide spatial planning. Getting information to the local people affected by floods in flood-prone areas and in floodplains is very important and has proven to be an effective non-structural measure. As a result of the discussions in the different sessions, the following recommendations have been made.

Ref. flood risk management There is a need to share approaches and thinking on appraisal methodology for schemes; this should also include social, environmental and economic factors. Decision support systems for the entire basin are valuable instruments for understanding possible effects of planned measures. Public and political awareness of the importance of integrated water management must be raised. There is a need to share ideas on risk communication with the public. There is a need to share methodologies and approaches to risk mapping as well as the modelling tools used in managing an event. Regular data collection is a prerequisite (discharge, sediment, erosion of the catchment area). Data should be open to everybody (organizations and countries).

Ref. basin-wide management Ideally speaking: one basin, one plan, one authority. Each basin should have:
one integrated flood management plan (as part of IWMP with a common goal), with a balance between structural and non-structural measures, development and O&M;
one authority, or else coordination between the different parties involved, with an adequate budget, staff, skills and legislation. Efforts should be made to share all monitoring information and scientific data at all times, and not only during floods. It is important to disseminate information to the various levels. It is advisable to exchange experiences with the successful dissemination of reliable flood warning information.

Ref. institutional cooperation Since the countries have different organizational settings with respect to flood management, it is valuable to exchange experiences with respect to institutional cooperation, especially regarding crisis management. Based on an integrated flood management plan for a whole catchment area, it should be made clear who is responsible for what, especially in times of a crisis. Besides the development of or investment in flood management measures, maintenance of these measures is also crucial for successful flood management. Capacity building within organizations is important. The organization should also be strong enough, otherwise it will not accept something suggested by others.

Ref. accountability Flood protection is a shared responsibility. Make frameworks to prepare a consistent strategy and avoid ad hoc flood defence initiatives. The framework should clarify the roles and the associated level of accountability. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Irrig. and Drain. 55: S159–S171 (2006)

EXPERIENCES WITH INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT

S171

Public risk awareness should be increased. It is important to communicate risks to the public. The recommendation is to learn from others’ experiences. Use the data and models to increase awareness. But what takes people from awareness to action? Studies on human behaviour are required. How can that information be used for the tasks of water managers? It must ensured that people remain alert to flood risks, even if they are insured.

Ref. spatial planning Effective integrated flood management (IFM) requires harmonization with land use, e.g. to maintain storage and conveyance capacity, but also to reduce potential flood damage. Flood risk maps are an important instrument for land use planning in relation to flood risk management. This requires the delineation of the floodplain and defined protection levels. Compare how different countries arrived at different norm frequencies. It is difficult to convey the risk to the public in terms it can understand and accept. The recommendation is to speak of a 1% chance of flooding instead of a 1:100-year flood. Flood risk maps are also a valuable means of communicating risk to local people, to raise awareness, encourage new behaviour and offer empowerment. A special topic in land use planning is regional sediment management: how to decrease sediment input in river systems and avoid blocking the conveyance capacity. Related to agricultural use and natural features of the floodplains: what is the vegetation roughness and water retention capacity of the floodplain? And what vegetation is best suited to flood-prone areas? Develop flood-proof agriculture. In addition, legal and financial instruments (damage compensation, tax reduction as an incentive) are needed, e.g. for expropriation purposes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The original paper on the discussions and conclusions of the CEO conference was prepared with the help of the Project Team High Level Meeting and the Dutch (participating) country contact persons.

REFERENCES All country papers (13) as prepared for the CEO conference have been published on CD-ROM in Floods, from Defence to Management. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Flood Defence, 25–27 May 2005, Nijmegen, the Netherlands by van Alphen J, van Beek E, Taal M. Taylor & Francis/Balkema Publishers: Leiden, the Netherlands.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Irrig. and Drain. 55: S159–S171 (2006)