Governance challenges for IFRM

Implementation of IFRM is not straightforward. The ‘integrationist agenda’ as described by Medema et al. (2008) gives an idea of how broad its scope can be and implicitly shows the inherent complexity related to organising for integration: ¨the integrated and coordinated management of water and land as a means of balancing resource protection while simultaneously meeting social and ecological needs and promoting economic development”. IFRM can be considered a fundamental component of integrated water management (IWM) (Green, 2010). The theoretical development of these domains has been mutually supportive up to the point that definitions of IFRM and IWM are interchanged (e.g. Wolsink, 2006). The definition of Thomas and Durham (2003) for IWM is directly applicable to IFRM: “..an approach to water <flood> management that recognises its multidimensional character—time, space, multidiscipline and stakeholders—and the necessity to address, embrace and relate these dimensions holistically….”. These multiple dimensions of IFRM bring about many governance challenges to organise for the implementation of IFRM policies and projects. In this Section (1.1.2) an introduction is given to the governance challenges. In the conclusions of the research presented in this thesis (Chapter 8.1) they are structured to frame the guidance that this research provides to deliver IFRM.

The objectives of IFRM have broadened with respect to traditional flood management from reducing the probability of flooding, to reducing flood risk, which also includes reducing potential consequences of flooding. Flood risk inherently comprises multiple and sometimes competing objectives, such as reducing: individual risk (probability of death of one person due to flooding); group risk (function of probability of flood event and related number of fatalities); economic risk (function of probability of flood and related direct and indirect material damage. Indirect adverse economic consequences can also include

Introduction

5

foregone revenues). Moreover, physical interventions to reduce flood risk need to be incorporated into spatial planning and thus need to be balanced with a range of other spatial planning priorities and objectives, including meeting new housing needs, facilitating economic growth, and creating and maintaining quality places (Potter et al., 2013) to increase the political and financial feasibility of the implementation of measures that reduce flood exposure and vulnerability (White, 2010; Veerbeek et al, 2012). Spatial planning sets out to integrate various needs and requirements at a range of spatial and temporal scales. In this, flood risk management is not normally considered to be the most important of the various utility and service needs and opportunities such as e.g. mobility, or energy supply. Contrary, the implementation of flood protection measures often prevails over other planning objectives when they need to be integrated in spatial or zoning plans (White, 2010; Klijn et al., 2008).

There is a lack of understanding or shared perception of the effectiveness of IFRM measures (Adger et al., 2005) such as, inter alia, urban planning or emergency planning. This holds particularly true for a portfolio of measures that is to be implemented gradually as part of an adaptation strategy (ibid; Gersonius, 2012). This lack of understanding contributes to unwillingness by involved professionals to take risk and innovate by using alternative measures to flood protection (Newman et al., 2011). The flood management discipline is dominated by engineers ¨who tend to look for solutions in a direction familiar to them¨ (Klijn et al., 2008) and thus sustain a culture of flood protection. Partnerships and collaboration are essential to achieve an integrated approach. Planners need the expertise, and crucially the understanding, of engineers and hydrologists. However, there can be considerable misunderstanding and miscommunication between disciplines (Potter et al., 2013; Zhou et al, 2013).

Flood risk reduction is a long-term goal compared with many other planning considerations such as increasing mobility or facilitating economic growth. Balancing planning objectives for various time horizons further complicates the integration of flood risk management in planning processes (Gersonius, 2012). The implementation through spatial planning of a portfolio of measures to reduce flood risk requires a long-term plan or adaptation strategy that comprises multiple interventions over time (ibid). Some interventions might be needed in the short term to deliver the long-term plans and they require short-term benefits to be politically appealing (Geldof, 2007; Hamin & Gurran, 2009; White, 2010). The performance of flood risk reducing measures is to be evaluated for various time horizons and over a longer period of time to be able to fully appreciate their effectiveness (Carter et al, 2005; Belt et al., 2013). The increasing uncertainty

6

about changing flood risk due to climate change (Milly et al., 2008) makes the performance assessment of measures over various time horizons more complex. The multi-objective planning process is complex and means that no single stakeholder group has final or absolute control over urban or spatial developments (Hajer and Zonneveld, 2000; Sellers, 2002). This multi-actor setting further complicates the way in which flood risk can be adequately addressed in planning processes (OECD, 2010). Planning should be flexible and dynamic enough to address complex challenges - such as flood risk - combining spatial quality with democratic legitimacy. Governance and network theories (Hanf and Scharpf 1978; Kickert et al.,1997; Marsh and Rhodes, 1992; Rhodes 1997; Scharpf 1997) indicate that multiple stakeholders, private and public, at various levels of government and from various policy domains, are becoming more actively involved in decision making to share interests, aims and ambitions and to develop a joint definition of the problems and potential responses. Interactive decision making through dialogue between various stakeholders is expected to result in richer policy proposals that can be implemented more efficiently and thus raise the democratic legitimacy of the decisions (Edelenbos & Klijn, 2006). There is no blueprint to organise for participation and interactive decision making; rather it requires customised and adaptive process management (ibid). The governance challenges for organising the implementation of IFRM can be defined as ‘wicked-problems’; being problems that have multiple and conflicting criteria for defining solutions, solutions that create problems for others, and no rules for determining when problems can be said to be solved (Rittel and Webber, 1973), and ‘persistent problems’ that are: complex; ill-structured; involve many stakeholders; are surrounded by structural uncertainties; and are hard to manage¨ (Rotmans, 2005). The wicked and persistent problems are to be overcome in each project that aims to deliver IFRM and change the physical system (natural and man-made). Additionally, many authors (e.g. Wostl et al., 2010; Bos and Brown, 2012) argue that a change of the societal system2 _{is necessary to enable IFRM.}

The research presented in this thesis distinguishes between guidance to organise projects that comprise interventions to adapt the physical system (Section 1.1.3) and understanding how these projects can contribute to a transition that changes the societal system and enables a wider uptake and implementation of IFRM (Section 1.1.4).

2 _{A societal system is a part of society that can be attributed a functioning and functioning is the}

way a societal system meets a societal need. The functioning of societal systems can be described by its: structures, cultures and practices (e.g. Rotmans and Loorbach, 2006; Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009; Van Raak, 2010).

Introduction

7