1. Integated Urban Flood Risk Management Chris Zevenbergen, William Veerbeek – COST C22/UNESCO-IHE Srikantha Herath – UN University

3. Sheffield & Don Hannover Drechtsteden Lidköping MARE partnership

5. Contents What is at stake ? Options for the future Conclusions and recommendations

6. What is at stake ? (1) >75% flood damage in urban areas; Current policies (if any) are generally directed to reduce flood probabilities; Despite economic considerations decisions on flood risk management are driven by events; The protection level is not the result of an economic trade-off; Extreme events (e.g. overtopping) are not yet taken into account/systems are not designed for failure.

7. What is at stake ? (2) Floods are on the rise (damage: 5% increase annually) Number of big flood disasters are increasing Only 5 percent of new development ‘under way’ in the world’s expanding cities is planned (UN, 2007). Spatial distributions by and large ignore flood risk

8. Need for change Increasing vulnerability and uncertainty Increasing complexity (and dynamics) Current practise: -Large (collective) protection systems -Local scale interventions & preparedness -Mixed strategies ?

9. Towards action Bringing ideas into action is about: –Risk perception and communication –Changing human behaviour –Learning from best practices and failure –Relationships

10. Extreme event vs disaster

11. Disaster impacts are determined by vulnerability that can be understood, managed and reduced.

12. Urbanisation Current paradigm: buildings last forever and ‘site or urban location is eternal’ planning practices based upon static conditions of climate and building stock. New paradigm: cities are dynamic complex systems: autonomeous/planned adaptation change and variability are characterized by uncertainty

13. CC: uncertainty increases Variability increases:more extreme events Future climate cannot be predicted on the basis of past events: probability is dead! No best solution Opportunities for innovations CC actual impacts vs ‘autonomous’ impacts (e.g. city development) difficult to distinguish: impact of the first is likely much higher CC incentive to reform current practices

14. Coping with increasing complexity and uncertainty: Cultivating/enhancing resilience: Utilising reversible, robust, adaptable and diverse responses (structural some non-structural options in a portfolio)Utilising reversible, robust, adaptable and diverse responses (structural some non-structural options in a portfolio) Multi-sectoral (all parties with flood risk and spatial planning responsibilities)/linking organizations and institutions across scales Long-term perspective Building capacity in people and systems (hard and soft)Building capacity in people and systems (hard and soft) Promoting active learning through engagementPromoting active learning through engagement Learning by doing in demonstration projects Seizing window of opportunity (e.g. renewal projects) Identifying and supporting championsIdentifying and supporting champions ….. * COST C22: CAIWA conference 2007

15. synergies/short term benefits

16. Building resilience measures in Hamburg

18. Pilot Dordrecht (Netherlands)

19. To successfully manage future floods it requires: –an understanding of what responses could be used/are appropiate (much technology already available). –the political will and infrastructure to deliver on these ideas. –engagement of the public

20. Conclusions & recommendations CC provides an opportunity to rethink and adopt new approaches Impact of extreme events can be managed Focus on impact reduction requires strong engagement of the public Experimentation and learning Need to catalyse action in cities around the world through dissimination of knowledge, demonstration projects, from learning networks and high profile events. Flood Resilience Centre