Flood damage survey after major flood in Norway 2013 - cooperation between the insurance business and a government agency Hallvard Berg, Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate Mia Ebeltoft, Finance Norway Jørgen Nielsen, Norwegian Natural Perils Pool Friar 2014, Poznan, Poland

Norway Population 5 mill. AREA: Main land: 323 787 km2 LAND USE: Svalbard: 61 022 km2 Jan Mayen: 377 km2 LAND USE: Developed: 1,4 % Farm land: 3,2 % Marsh land: 5,8 % Lakes and glaciers: 7,0 % Forest: 38,2 % Mountainous: 44,4 % Inhabited area

The flood of May 2013

Flood risk management in Norway «how to live with the hazards» White Paper no 15 (2012): ”The Government will continue its effort in prevention of damage caused by floods, landslides and avalanches based on a holistic approach” Mapping Land use planning Protection measures Monitoring and early warning Contingency and crisis management R&D, communication NVE’s work in preventing damage from floods and landslides is structured according to the holistic approach, in the following tasks: Hazard and risk mapping Assistance and control of land use planning in the municipalities Planning and construction of structural protection measures Monitoring and early warning: Floods, Debris flows, Snow avalanche Assistance to the police and municipalities in emergency situations Research & Development, Communication 21. sep. 2018

Natural hazards insurance in Norway Automatically linked to fire insurance Premium a function of insurance value Covers damage to the building, content, garden and courtyard The Natural Perils Pool: Equalizes losses between the insurance companies Reassurance – modelling of risk Finance Norway: Federation for banks, insurance companies, financial institutions Business policy, employer-related issues Two main compensation systems for private property: Private insurance Governmental compensation, damage to non-insurable property Regulated by the Natural Hazards Insurance Act. Premium not differentiated according to risk. Set by the Government It is part of FNO’s climate strategy to work with public authorities in the prevention of damage caused by increased frequency and intensity of natural events.

Motivation for cooperation Improve the basis for Flood risk assessment Improve the tools to assess the risk and the effects of measures A lot of effort put into hazard assessment Improve the basis for consequence assessment Finance Noway’s climate strategy: Work with public authorities in the prevention of damage caused by increased frequency and intensity of natural events.

Damage survey 2013 – registration of flood parameters A special form was developed. Supplementary to the standard damage survey form.

Damage survey 2013 – registration of flood parameters Link to damage survey Flood parameters Surveyor Survey ID Insurance company Damage location Municipality no Building no Supplementary information Water level (cm +/- relative to ground floor level) Basement (yes/no) Erosion, under-mining of the building (yes/no) Mass deposition outside of the building (yes/no - thickness) Damage due to floating objects etc hitting the building (yes/no) Parameters registered

Results from the 2013 survey 243 cases reported Water level: Above ground floor (1-170 cm): 85 cases Below ground floor (1-270 cm): 89 cases Value «0»: 43 cases Blank (no value): 27 cases 182 cases linked to damage data Issues: Relative water levels Link to other parameters? Weak positioning

Results from the 2013 survey Other hazard parameters collected   Basement? Erosion, under- mining? Mass deposition outside? Floating objects hitting? Yes 117 17 70 7 No 110 214 161 224 Blank 16 12

Results from the 2013 survey 182 cases linked to damage data

Stage – damage curves from 1995 data Source: Gottschalk & Krasovskaia, 2006

Highest water level above basement floor Category All data Single family residential houses Secondary houses Public buildings Farms Industrial- Commercial buildings Other buildings total number of cases 2296 607 211 97 649 359 373 number of cases with complete data 1420 367 161 69 432 218 173 mean 570 311 160 1116 805 914 268 median 142 93 521 281 184 81 std. dev. 1170 678 1490 1333 1734 619 minimum 0.1 1.4 3.5 11 795 maximum 15655 5512 1029 10535 6803 5512298 coeff. var. 2.052 2.180 1.149 1.335 1.656 1.897 2.308 skewness 4.758 4.737 2.217 3.995 2.821 4.524 5.628

Relevant data?

Benefit to FRM from damage surveys Overall risk picture Prioriteringer, forvaltningsplaner Detailed analyses Cost-benefit analyses – flood protection Calibration and verification of models – mapping -> land use planning Critical damage levels – emergency management Map positioning and link to hazard parameters increases the value substantially! Given Risk as a function of probability and consequence. We spend a lot of effort on the probability of the event, water levels etc. Much more subjective judgements of consequences. Overall risk picture: Prioritisation of preventive actions Flood risk management plans Identify «hot spots» Plans for mapping Plans for protection Flood warning? – critical water levels Emergency management – prioritisation of efforts during crises -

Overall risk picture Damage to private property 1980 – 2013

Overall risk picture - prioritization Preliminary flood risk assessment

Flood risk assessment – flow chart Source: Gottschalk & Krasovskaia, 2006

Cost- benefit analysis

Actual water level – detailed location 153,35 masl 153,05 masl 153,20 masl 202,46 masl

Flood event map

200 years flood – basis for land use planning

Flood warning map for 25 May 2015?

Visions Systematic collection of damage data by key stakeholders Cost- effective inclusion of hazard parameters in standard damage survey Access to all data relevant to flood risk analyses – clarify conserning sensitivity of data Standardised format/ structure – map positioning More/ better data -> improved risk management -> reduced damage  This is example of cooperation between the insurance business and NVE. Preferably collection of damage data should be performed by all key stakeholders (road, railway authorities, municipalities, other infrastructure owners, The Governmnetal Natural Hazards Fund) Ref the Pilot project: discussions ongoing how to move forward - making data from the insurance business available to the public, in particular the municipalities.

Thank you for your attention! hbe@nve.no 21.09.201821.09.2018