Post a comment on the text below

Box 4.4           Recommendations to implement the FD in the Rhine basin – a water governance perspective

Since the FD came into force much has happened to implement it in the Rhine basin. The roles and responsibilities had to be allocated for the three implementation steps of making PFRAs, FHRMs and FRMPs. Many of these tasks are carried out by the regional and local governments, whereas flood control used to be the responsibility of a national government. The implementation process is going well: discussions take place on new strategies to change from flood control to managing flood risks; maps are prepared at the local level resulting in an improved understanding of the local flood risk situation; member states are pushed to be transparent since they engage with stakeholders and present their flood risk management plans.

However, there are also issues that require attention for the next 6-year implementation cycle of the FD. These issues are discussed and complemented with lessons learnt from the Space for the River programme, a programme that implements 34 projects that integrate flood control with spatial quality along the Dutch Rhine branches.

The first issue relates to transferring responsibilities to the regional and local governments. These governments do not always have sufficient technical capacity to develop flood risk management measures and maps. Moreover, public administration staffs are reduced across the river basin, making it difficult to conduct the required work for the FD. Insights from the Space for the River programme suggest that tasks should be matched with the expertise and capacity of an organisation rather than imposing new tasks on them. Integration across different levels of government is reached by initiating (and maintaining) region specific Steering Committees where administrators of different levels meet. Another lesson is that responsibilities should not only be well defined across governmental organisations, but also within one organisation since flood risk management covers multiple departments.

The second issue is budget. Securing budget for flood risk management measures becomes increasingly difficult since countries reduce budgets. The FD neither provides budget for funding nor recommends how to arrange funding for the implementation of measures. In the Space for the River programme budget was secured at the national level for the full programme. The budget is spent in local projects by regional and local governments. External accountants closely monitor their spending. 

The third issue is cross-sectoral integration and policy coherence. Agriculture, industry and urban areas are in competition with space reservations for flood retention areas along the River Rhine. Space for the River projects realise measures that integrate interests of flood risk management, agriculture, industry, nature and urban expansion. The Space for the River case suggests that connections between these sectors should be included in policies from the very start, and that budget should be allocated for measures that integrate various functions. Much time should be devoted to exploring integrated options at the local scale since insights are gained on the ambitions of actors from different sectors and governments (local and regional).

The fourth issue is whether the outcomes of the Directive are reached. The Directive is ambitious since it aims to change policies from flood control to flood risk management. However, member states may become afraid of sanctions when they do not reach too ambitious goals. Instead regions may opt for ‘form’ instead of content and merely present plans that do not differ much from the current flood policy. For instance, (Heintz, et al., 2012) report that the German Federal States of Hesse and Saxony adapted the tasks of the FD to their existing routines in a ‘pro-forma’ implementation process. These routines fitted the flood security approach that is characterised by top-down sectoral planning by the water authority