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

Copyright © 2016 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Suykens, C., S. J. Priest, W. J. van Doorn-Hoekveld, T. Thuillier, and M. van Rijswick. 2016. Dealing with flood damages: will prevention, mitigation, and ex post compensation provide for a resilient triangle? Ecology and Society 21(4):1. http://dx.doi. org/10.5751/ES-08592-210401 Research, part of a Special Feature on Toward More Resilient Flood Risk Governance Dealing with flood damages: will prevention, mitigation, and ex post compensation provide for a resilient triangle? Cathy Suykens 1,2, Sally J. Priest 3, Willemijn J. van Doorn-Hoekveld 2, Thomas Thuillier 4 and Marleen van Rijswick 2 ABSTRACT. 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. Key Words: adaptive building; compensation; flood mitigation; flood risk governance; flood risk prevention; insurance; recovery; resilience INTRODUCTION Solid mechanisms to help society recover from flood events are crucial in any flood risk management (FRM) framework, and financial compensation plays a central role. Flood recovery schemes have already been analyzed in-depth from the perspective of solidarity and accessibility (Faure 2007a, Faure and Bruggeman 2008, Porrini and Schwarze 2014). We present results from the European Union (EU)–funded STAR-FLOOD (Strengthening and redesigning European flood risk practices: towards appropriate and resilient flood risk governance arrangements) project and go a step further to discuss the ways in which the existing ex post compensation schemes in Belgium, the Netherlands, England, and France enhance resilience in combination with existing prevention and mitigation strategies. Our aim is to propose concrete recommendations on how synergies can be improved to provide a coherent FRM approach in which strategies reinforce and complement, rather than undermine, each other. Indeed, earlier comparative research has shown that the linkages between the ex post compensation schemes across the EU and preventing and mitigating flood (risks) have proved to be inadequate (see, e.g., Keskitalo et al. 2014, Lamond and Penning-Rowsell 2014, Penning-Rowsell and Priest 2015, Hudson et al. 2016). Diversification of FRM strategies, i.e., prevention, defense, mitigation, preparation, and recovery, is recognized as essential for robust and resilient flood governance arrangements (Hegger et al. 2013) and is emphasized by the EU Floods Directive 2007/60/ EC (European Parliament, Council of the European Union 2007). However, it is not sufficient for states to merely adopt additional strategies and measures; to be truly effective, they need to be complementary and aligned. We focus, therefore, on how these different strategies interact and question whether recovery measures, e.g., insurance or public compensation, can encourage action by citizens to increase their resilience and promote 1 adaptation at the individual scale. Flood recovery is a strategy in which the dynamics between public and private actors is highly apparent because the FRM legal realm has an impact, to varying degrees, on insurance schemes for natural disasters. As such, the division of responsibilities and the role of public-private partnerships are critical to the recovery–risk reduction nexus. For example, in countries where private insurance offers the primary route to cover flood risks, the government has various ways that it may facilitate the adequate operation of the insurance scheme vis-à-vis the flood risks, for example by providing a fallback mechanism in case insurance caps have been exceeded (Faure 2007a). We do not aim to make normative judgments regarding the nature of the compensation scheme applicable in the countries an sich but, rather, point out where the vulnerabilities and opportunities for the linkages with risk prevention and mitigation within these systems lie. In this regard, a question also relates to the roles of private parties, i.e., the insurers, and the public authorities in facilitating these linkages between ex post compensation schemes and risk prevention and mitigation. Two main research questions form the heart of the analysis: 1. How do the frameworks for ex post compensation in Belgium, England, the Netherlands, and France promote risk prevention and mitigation actions to reduce citizens’ exposure and vulnerability to floods, and which good practices can be put forward? 2. Which legislative and policy actions can be taken at the national level to facilitate solid linkages between ex post compensation mechanisms and measures to promote flood prevention and mitigation actions? Before delving into the comparative discussion, we will first clarify the methodological approach we have adopted and the theoretical backbone supporting the analysis. Institute for Environmental and Energy Law, KU Leuven, 2Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University, 3Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, 4Laboratory for Studies and Researches on Public Action, Université François-Rabelais (Tours) Ecology and Society 21(4): 1 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss4/art1/ METHOD An external comparative analysis of the legal and policy frameworks governing ex post flood compensation in Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and England has been undertaken. The value of such a comparison is that it provides an opportunity to identify best practices, as well as barriers to the linking of strategies, and identifie (...truncated)