Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Minutes of meeting February th and th The Hague by jolinmilioncherie



Report Workshop COMRISK subproject 1
The Hague, February 16th and 17th

1 Welcome

1.1 Marinka Kiezebrink (RIKZ) welcomes the attendees to the workshop. This
workshop combines both subproject 1 and 2. This report only refers to the part
regarding subproject 1 (February 16th) and the combined session of both subprojects
(February 17th).

2 Presentation of subproject 1

Jeroen Klooster (KPMG) presents the results of subproject 1. The corresponding
PowerPoint presentation will be available on the internal website of Comrisk.

3 Comments/questions on results subproject 1

-   Paul Sayers (HR Wallingford) remarks that the UK doesn’t maximize the
    economic Benefit/Cost, but only makes use of the economic Benefit/Cost
    approach in the appraisal alternative;

-   Compensation can mean commercial insurance or a government disaster funds.

-   Jacobus Hofstede (Innenministerium SH) asks why Bremen isn’t included in the
    results of subproject 1. Bremen is not included, because Bremen covers a small
    part of the coast and is comparable with Hamburg. And secondly, because it
    was not possible to interview a policymaker in Bremen (because of language

-   Paul Sayers (HR Wallingford): what do you mean with time horizon? The fact
    that there is no bullet does not mean that a country makes no use of a time
    horizon. It’s about the length of the time horizon, which means ‘several
    generations to come’ (ICZM criteria). In Germany the time horizon is the
    lifetime of a dike, that is 100 years. The UK and the Netherlands both use a
    longer time horizon. The UK has developed the project Foresight. The
    Netherlands looks 200 years forward.

-   Local/national instruments: Sp 1 has a national focus.

-   Bart de Jong (DGW) likes to know why the policy in the UK/Denmark varies
    more than the other countries. Policy also depends on the history (part of the

                                                                         Report Workshop subproject 1
                                                                                 16th of February 2004

    context). In the Netherlands government is responsible for the defences for
    centuries. In the UK and Denmark the responsibility is more concentrated on
    the regional level.

-   The difference between Rotterdam and Hamburg is that in Hamburg higher
    ground is nearby in contrast to Rotterdam.

-   Traditionally, in the Netherlands there are no evacuation plans for flooding,
    because a flooding ‘should not happen’. But this attitude is changing, and at the
    moment there is a discussion about ‘should we have an evacuation plan’? For
    river flooding there are evacuation plans.

4 Results of speed dating

4.1 Per country:

           -    What did you find interesting in the policies and strategies of another

           -    Can you translate this to your own context?

           -    How much room is there for (other) policy within a certain context?

4.2 The results per country are the results of a brainstorm session, and therefore
should not be treated as official policy statements.

Interesting points from:

   United Kingdom:

       -   Long-term development of coastline considered

       -   Catalogue of priority (ranking system).

       -   Funding is decision maker, so it is a political decision

   Flanders:

       -   Large part of the budget is spent on Oostende. Flanders explains that it is
           a large part of the budget, but Oostende is also the weakest part of the
           coast. There are no protests from other regions, such as Knokke.

bc8c2210-e72c-4965-abd4-f8bba98314a0.doc                                                             2
                                                                               Report Workshop subproject 1
                                                                                       16th of February 2004

   Netherlands

        -     Discussion on safety standard. Is it safe enough?

        -     Difference in safety inside and outside the dike ring.

How much room within a certain context?

        -     The policy in Germany is implemented in the law, so there is not much
              room for new policy.

United Kingdom
   Netherlands

        -     Discussion on safety standard. Safety standard based on economic
              analysis from 50 years ago. The policy has lived for a long time.

        -     Risk awareness is low compared to England

        -     The UK has a more risk-based approach than the Netherlands.

   Flanders

        -     Policy on a specific issue, but no common national policy on flood risk.

   Germany

        -     Distribution of funds. How transparent is the policy? There is no
              catalogue such as in England. The judgment in the priority setting is
              based on local knowledge of dike and risk.

   Learning points:

 S a f e t y b a s e d p o lic y                                   L a c k o f r is k a w a r e n e s s

 I n te g r a te d r is k - b a s e d p o lic y                    I n c r e a s e d p u b lic a w a r e n e s s
                                                                   ( d ia lo g u e o n r is k s )

bc8c2210-e72c-4965-abd4-f8bba98314a0.doc                                                                           3
                                                                       Report Workshop subproject 1
                                                                               16th of February 2004

   United Kingdom

       -   Different budgets for coastal defences and ecological enhancement. In
           Belgium there is one budget that fits in with integrated coastal zone

       -   In the UK it’s prescribed by law what needs protection. In Belgium there
           is no law. The focus is on coastal defence infrastructure.

   Netherlands

       -   Policymaking and implementation is done by different organizations in
           the Netherlands. In Belgium this is organized in one group. There is less
           policy evaluation.

       -   In Netherlands increasing communication with the public. In Belgium
           effort to increase communication with the public.

   Germany

       -   Master plan in which a distinction is made between coastal defences and
           erosion. There is also difference between erosion in a rural versus urban
           area. Belgium doesn’t have a master plan yet.

How much room within a certain context: Belgium has no law regarding flood risk
management, but is difficult to say how much room there is to change the policy.

   United Kingdom

       -   Insurance against flooding based on map of risk

       -   Use of public (communication) in finding solutions.

       -   Cost benefit               Risk based approach

   Belgium

       -   Focus on implementation with an integrated approach; this is not the case
           regarding policy.

bc8c2210-e72c-4965-abd4-f8bba98314a0.doc                                                           4
                                                                           Report Workshop subproject 1
                                                                                   16th of February 2004

       -   The Netherlands is struggling with an integrated approach and finds it
           interesting how Belgium handles this.

       -   In Belgium policy, implementation and evaluation in one hand.

   Germany

       -   Evacuation plans only possible in restricted areas, where it is easy to
           evacuate. In these areas is the safety standard less than in other areas i.e.
           when protection is too difficult or too expensive.

       -   In Hamburg companies are encouraged to provide their own protection.

       -   In Germany no building allowed in unprotected areas. In the Netherlands
           it’s possible to live in unprotected areas. There is a discussion to allow
           building in outside area or not. Improvement of the attitude that
           government is still responsible if something goes wrong.

5 Closing off session February 16th

5.1 In general, the participants find it hard to answer the question of how much
room there is within one’s context. There is always room for variation of strategies
and policies but it depends on the situation. In each of the countries there is a
continuing policy process in which policies are evaluated and redefined.

5.2 Comments on the draft report can be send until 1st of March to KPMG (this is
changed into 5th of March)

5.3 KPMG drafts the final report and sends it to the Comrisk team.

6 Flood ranger game, February 17th 2004

During the morning session of February 17th the participants have played an
interactive game, called ‘Floodranger’. Floodranger has recently been developed in
the United Kingdom as a result of the Flood and Coastal Defence project of the UK
Foresight Programme. The aim of this project was to produce a challenging long-
term vision of the future of flood and coastal defence that takes account of the many
uncertainties, is robust, and can be used as a basis to inform policy and its delivery.
As the future is uncertain, the project has looked at several different future
scenarios in order to explore the potential impact of the problem.

The goal of Floodranger is to enhance knowledge of the impact of different types of
flood defences, taking into account the possible impacts of climate change, different
world scenarios and balancing the demands of people and the environment.

bc8c2210-e72c-4965-abd4-f8bba98314a0.doc                                                               5
                                                                               Report Workshop subproject 1
                                                                                       16th of February 2004

After an initial instruction by Ian Meadowcroft (EA UK), the participants have been
split up in two sub groups. Relating to the contents of Comrisk sub project 1, the
game was also meant to get an answer to the following question: starting from the
same background (context), what kind of policy instruments will different groups
apply? Will it be largely the same kind of instruments or can different types of
policy instruments lead to the same result in the same context?

Each of these groups has played 2-3 rounds. At the end of the morning session
experiences have been shared amongst the participants. The first round was
generally used to get more acquainted with the game. The next round(s) did seem to
point in the direction that to a large extent the same types of instruments were being
applied, although some variations were visible.

In general it was felt that this type of game can be very powerful and effective in
simulating possible results of different kinds of coastal / riverside protection
strategies, thus also creating (more) awareness and knowledge amongst policy
makers and their advisors.

7 Attendees February 16th –17th 2004

Name                       Organization
Holger Blum                NLWK Niedersachsen
Gabriela Gönnert           Behörde für Wirtschaft und Arbeit - Strom und Hafenbau -
Jacobus Hofstede           Innenministerium SH
Dagmar Fischer             Federal Verbraucherministerium

Suresh Surendran           Environment Agency
Paul Sayers                HR Wallingford
Ian Meadowcroft            Environment Agency
Elise Pobjoy               Halcrow

Leen Vermeersch            Ministerie Vlaamse Gemeenschap
Toon Verwaest              Ministerie Vlaamse Gemeenschap

Marinka Kiezebrink         RIKZ
Sander Hoogewoning         RIKZ
Ard Wolters                DWW
Sandra Fraikin             DWW
Hans Balfoort              RIKZ
Bart de Jong               DGW
Jeroen Klooster            KPMG
Frank Uithol               Atos KPMG
Roel van Raak              TU Delft

bc8c2210-e72c-4965-abd4-f8bba98314a0.doc                                                                   6
                                           Report Workshop subproject 1
                                                   16th of February 2004

Heleen Verlinde            KPMG

bc8c2210-e72c-4965-abd4-f8bba98314a0.doc                               7

To top