Implementing new flood protection standards: obstacles to adaptive management and how to overcome these

Frans Klijn,Arno De Kruif,Marjolijn Haasnoot,Nathalie E.M Asselman,Pieter J.T.M Bloemen,M Lang,F Klijn,P Samuels

doi:10.1051/e3sconf/20160721003

Frans Klijn, Arno De Kruif + Show 6 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20160721003

Copy DOI

Abstract

The Netherlands is updating its flood protection, whilst fully taking into account climate change and socioeconomic development. This translates in ‘anticipatory standards’ which need to be met in 2050, and which apply for the then foreseen climate and economy. Whilst the government maintains to have adopted a policy of adaptive planning and management, the new standards are thus based on one future situation, which qualifies as a ‘high end scenario’ from a flood risk management perspective. The consequences of adopting these new standards are now becoming clear. It is expected that many hundreds of kilometres of primary flood defences need to be reinforced and/or raised, at an estimated investment of about 9-14 billion euros. The many uncertainties about actual future development, however, complicate the decision making about the implementation of individual reinforcement projects: should one aim at immediately meeting the new standard or gradually improve and grow towards it? In this paper we discuss the uncertain decision making context, show that lawfulness (working according to procedures, rules and regulations) and expediency (towards a purpose) may jeopardize the good intentions of adaptive management, and argue that optimization may not provide the most useful answer to this decision making problem.

Highlights

The Netherlands is updating its flood protection, whilst fully taking into account climate change and socioeconomic development
The leading thought of the Delta Programme is that the country should anticipate climate change and socio-economic developments and their likely consequences in terms of increased flood and drought risk, instead of respond to flood or drought disasters after they happened
Adaptive delta management differs from the many centuries of adaptation in the past and from what is usually described in literature as the essence of adaptive management [e.g. 9 ± 12] in that it calls for anticipation instead of response, and because it explicitly recognizes and takes account of uncertainties about the future

Summary

A first concrete policy decision: new flood protection standards

The Delta Programme was tasked to revise the 1HWKHUODQGV¶ IORRG ULVN PDQDJHPHQW SROLF\ 7KLV UHvision encompassed an actualisation in order to account for the grown population and economy, a modernisation in order to better align with the best-practices of comprehensive flood risk management as prescribed by the EU-Floods Directive and further established in various EU-projects and by international comparisons [18, 19], and anticipating future changes. The criterion on economic efficiency was accounted for by performing a benefit-cost analysis [20], in order to define which degree of protection would yield sufficient return on investment in terms of reduced risk levels and ± in the end ± less flood losses. In cases where a flood might cause societal disruption because of vital infrastructure being hit, cascade-effects, large numbers of fatalities, or long-term disruption of public life or business, the protection standard was raised further This accounts for the sustainability criterion with respect to the FRXQWU\¶V VRFLR-economic functioning. We shall explore some possible consequences for reinforcement planning and make some suggestions on how one might proceed in practice

Implications of the new standards: provisional exploration

Findings

The conflict between adaptive management and existing rules and regulations