1. Flood damage survey after major flood in Norway 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

2. Norway Population 5 mill. AREA: Main land: 323 787 km2 LAND USE:
Svalbard: 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

3. The flood of May 2013

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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.

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Results from the 2013 survey
182 cases linked to damage data

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

14. 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
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

15. Relevant data?

16. 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 -

17. Overall risk picture Damage to private property 1980 – 2013

18. Overall risk picture - prioritization Preliminary flood risk assessment

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

20. Cost- benefit analysis

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

22. Flood event map

23. 200 years flood – basis for land use planning

24. Flood warning map for 25 May 2015?

25. 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.

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