FAIR Policy Debate
Remco Schrijver, project leader of FAIR, opened the policy debate: “The aim of this debate is to determine the focus of FAIR for the next two years. The outcome the debate will help to define the Improvement Potentials of FAIR. The Improvement Potentials are the parts of the FAIR project that can still be improved during the FAIR project duration. We will, by working together, determine the focus of FAIR for the coming two years.”
After the introduction to the debate Berry Gersonius, WP5 leader, informed the attendees about the spider diagram, projected on the floor. People were asked to stand on 'their' biggest barrier or improvement point, thus bringing the spider diagram to life.
The 4 table presidents then pitched their biggest barrier or improvement point. (Table 1) Michael Schaper (LSBG) introduced the topic of Asset Management Decisions (AMD): safety (certification) versus risk (failure probability). (Table 2) Bart Vonk (Rijkswaterstaat) introduced Information management (IM): Duty of Care and risk based plans on management risk. (Table 3) Jörgen Dehlin (Skåne) told the audience about External Coordination (EC): National versus local decision making and talked about the permits in Sweden: many tasks have been delegated to the lower authorities. Finally (Table 4) Ulf Radu Ciocan (DCA) introduced the topic of Strategic Perspective (SP): Is green infrastructure legitimate infrastructure, and could it be cheaper? The outer marches in Ribe were used as a case.
After the pitches by the different table hosts the attendees picked a topic to their liking and tried to further define the Improvement Potentials of FAIR.
The main outcomes and recommendations of the different tables were:
(Table 1) Asset Management Decisions (AMD)
“It is key to find a way to train the planners to be able to meet the new regulations. All new regulations need to be fit for future planning.”
(Table 2) Information management (IM)
“Recommendation is to built op historical data, analyze these en do a risk assessment on these analysis. It might be interesting topic for FAIR when flood defense managers with the same type of objects will compare the results and help each other writing risk based management plans.”
(Table 3) - External Coordination (EC
“Denmark is organized in a very democratic manner. Because every landowner is responsible for flood protection, there are a lot of stakeholders. In this situation, DCA could become a facilitating organization and define the scope of the challenges and mutual gains together with the landowners.”
(Table 4) Strategic Perspective (SP) “Localism has a lot of positivism and local needs are well managed. But you also need a centralist view in a rural area to be able to deal with existential challenges.”
