Our research article on the little adaption progress in the Dawlish case study had been accepted by Environmental Politics. It's online here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1386341
Keeping track of my work for the BASE project
Friday, 20 October 2017
Article in Environmental Politics
Our research article on the little adaption progress in the Dawlish case study had been accepted by Environmental Politics. It's online here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1386341
BASE Adaptation Inspiration Book
Colleagues from the University of Lisbon have edited a book which includes 23 case studies from the BASE project: http://base-adaptation.eu/sites/default/files/BASE%20Inspiration%20Book.pdf
It features our case studies on Dartmoor (pp. 22-25) and Dawlish (pp. 88-91).
Great to see this co-production resulting from all the different case studies !
Well done Kiat Ng, Ines Campos and Gil Penha-Lopes for putting this together.
It features our case studies on Dartmoor (pp. 22-25) and Dawlish (pp. 88-91).
Great to see this co-production resulting from all the different case studies !
Well done Kiat Ng, Ines Campos and Gil Penha-Lopes for putting this together.
Saturday, 18 June 2016
ECPR SGEU Conference Trento (Italy)
ECPR
Standing Group EU Conference Trento (Italy) 16-18 June 2016
It's beena bit silent this blog recently. It should be good of course if you can always squeeze in a
moment here and there for an update. But my attention shifted, and I was busy with moving back to the Netherlands and starting up a new job.
Anyhow,
about the conference. This was the first ECPR event I attended. The ECPR is the
academic association of European political scientists. The conference was
hosted in the city of Trento, in Northern Italy. Surrounded by mountains, with
a nice historic centre, good food and friendly atmosphere. This conference
focused specifically on policymaking and politics in the EU.
I
presented a paper on policy integration in a session on EU environmental
policy, with the case of analysing the integration process of climate change
adaptation into EU coastal and marine policy. The various topics of the
conference were pretty wide in scope, though all somehow related to
policymaking and politics in the EU. For example, the sessions I attended were
on dynamics and accountability of EU executive actors, the implications of
delegating tasks either to the European Commission or the member states, the
role of interest groups and stakeholders in the European Commission and various
agencies, responsive representation (i.e. how and to which extent does public
opinion resonate in EU decisionmaking), and effectiveness and legitimacy of EU
transboundary crises management.
Plenaries
were on the migration crisis and the EU’s policy and response on that, and on
the future and expected main challenges of the EU. In the first plenary, on the
migration crisis, there was a striking slide called “the magic formula”, with a
hypercomplicated formula to distribute refugees among the member states. It was
apparently proposed by the European Commission to solve the refugee crises. As
the presenter explained, this technocratic proposal did not receive a lot of
positive response. In the second plenary, on the future and challenges of EU,
there was more explicit mentioning of the upcoming Brexit referendum. The
general expectation is that a leave outcome may well be a realistic prospect.
What the wider repercussions of such a leave will be, is at this stage hard to
predict.
Furthermore,
I learned that the trade boycott between Russia and the EU is circumvented by
using Belarus (White Russia) as a go-between. Belarus is supposedly neutral. EU
products are apparently brought into Belarus, relabelled as Belarusian-made and
then further transported to Russia. I also learned that a gender lens may be
helpful in identifying certain patterns and actors in environmental policy.
Such a gender-specific lens may not seem obvious at first sight in the field of
environmental policy. But for example, in the EU, 80% of groceries is in
general done by women, which makes them a very important decisionmaker when it
comes to food consumption patterns.
The
panels in this conference tended to follow a certain format, which is maybe
standard for ECPR events, but was new for me. The three, four or five
presentations in a panel are done straight in a row (so no questions in
between), followed by feedback from one discussant who has looked at the papers
presented in that panel (quite some effort there!), then the chair collects the various comments and
questions from the audience, and the panel closes with 2 minutes for each presenter
to answer or reflect on the received feedback. The positive point of this
format is that at least you’ve heard all the questions and thoughts floating
around in the room (whether they are all answered by the presenters is actually
less relevant). Very often you only hear a selection of the questions, as time
has run out. On the other hand, such a format makes the dynamic not that
interactive, with 4 presentations in a row.
What
struck me was that most (not all) of the presentations seemed to be structured
in quite a different way than I’m familiar with to communicate about academic
research. I admit it was even building up to some slight irritation about this
other style, when I realised that this is apparently the way it works for this
group of political scientists. As this was my first ECPR event, I also feel
more like a visitor, and perhaps I should just observe the differences, and not
immediately label them with a certain qualification.
So what
are these differences? Most (not all) of the presentations at this conference
talked about the analytical framework, and elaborate on underlying assumptions,
how they relate to each other and where they are derived from. Which is of
course very interesting and relevant for an academic discussion. Then the
remainder of the presentation talked about general findings in aggregate terms,
finishing up with some conclusions. However, most (not all) the presentations
tended to skip:
- Reason, context, knowledge gap
- Main research question/aim
- Testing/applying in empirical context, e.g. a policy field, sector, policy setting case, certain actor or actor constellation
- Data collection, sources used
- Breaking down of the findings with some illustrations, examples, quotes to show how it works in practice
- How the collected empirical data (if at all) was analysed
- And meaning of the findings for the wider, conceptual, literature debate
- Reason, context, knowledge gap
- Main research question/aim
- Testing/applying in empirical context, e.g. a policy field, sector, policy setting case, certain actor or actor constellation
- Data collection, sources used
- Breaking down of the findings with some illustrations, examples, quotes to show how it works in practice
- How the collected empirical data (if at all) was analysed
- And meaning of the findings for the wider, conceptual, literature debate
Now,
there may very well be different perspectives on presentations about academic
research. In my experience, the above listed ingredients tend to help get your
study across.
While
there were exceptions that stood out with a substantial interesting story and a
good delivery, there were also a number of speakers which spoke quite soft and
monotonous, some with a heavy accent, and presenters tended to sit.
So, that
were some of my observations and impressions. I don’t know how representative
this ECPR event was for other ECPR events, they tend to have a quite a good
reputation actually. Finally, I met a couple of nice and interesting
researchers, and was very happy to have been able to visit the lovely town of
Trento.
Monday, 30 November 2015
Responses to the opinion article in Trouw
Below features the text of the opinion article with Emmy Bergsma, which was recently published in Dutch newspaper Trouw. We've received several reactions since. These include roughly two types of reactions:
1) a supportive type of reaction, from people who share our surprise on the lack debate on the consequences of the new Dutch flood risk policy.
2) a more critical reaction, mostly from people who have helped technically in developing this new policy. According to them, this opinion article is exaggerating, and seems to suggest we don't understand the calculations and numbers.
Indeed, there will be what is referred to as a 'basic safety' norm, in the past there were also differences in flood protection levels, the process seems to have opened up somewhat under the current Head of Department (Minister Schultz), and lower levels of government have been informed about this new policy (note that some have responded that they find the new policy too complex and that they can't explain this to their citizens).
However, this new calculation tool enables more political space to make choices in which areas will receive higher protection levels than others. There are indeed currently also differences in protection levels, but the space to increase these differences will be become bigger. And moreover, it is not clear yet, in which way the norms will chance exactly for the flood-prone areas in the Netherlands. Also, the Deltaprogramme very explicitly indicates it targets cost-efficiency, and indicates it will aim for differences in protection levels based on the value in an area (i.e. density of people and economic assets). And it very explicitly refers to the approach called "Multi-layered-safety", which also implies differences in protection levels, including evacuation plans instead of dike protection.
In addition, 2 years ago, the OECD pointed out in the Policy Dialogue on Water Governance with the Dutch government (in 2013), that general awareness of flood risks appeared to be surprisingly low. Dutch flood risk management appears to have become so good, that people don't realise anymore that they may be living in flood-prone areas. It does not appear that since the OECD Policy Dialogue, Dutch citizens have become substantially more aware of the flood risks, or even that the norms for their areas might be changing (as a consequence of the new Deltaprogramme).
In addition, 2 years ago, the OECD pointed out in the Policy Dialogue on Water Governance with the Dutch government (in 2013), that general awareness of flood risks appeared to be surprisingly low. Dutch flood risk management appears to have become so good, that people don't realise anymore that they may be living in flood-prone areas. It does not appear that since the OECD Policy Dialogue, Dutch citizens have become substantially more aware of the flood risks, or even that the norms for their areas might be changing (as a consequence of the new Deltaprogramme).
Apart from debate about the numbers and exact changes in flood risk norms, what this article tries to point out, is that people who pay taxes for collective flood risk protection may be affected by this new policy, although it is not yet clear how exactly, and there has been no national debate about how we want to finance our flood-protection, how we distribute the benefits, and whether we want to base flood-protection solely on a financial logic.
***
Bescherming tegen overstromingen niet langer collectief goed
Emmy Bergsma
promovenda op gebied van waterbeleid, Universiteit van Amsterdam
Roos M. den Uyl
beleidsonderzoeker op gebied van klimaatadaptatie, University of Exeter
Er dreigen grote risico’s voor Nederland op het gebied van waterbeheer.
Klimaatverandering vergroot niet alleen de kans op grote overstromingen, ook
lokale wateroverlast zal vaker voorkomen. Als gevolg van nieuw overheidsbeleid,
zal een deel van de Nederlanders in de toekomst genoegen moeten nemen met
minder bescherming tegen overstromingen.
Op het zesde Nationaal Deltacongres, dat onlangs plaatsvond, bleek de grote
vooruitstrevendheid waarmee de overheid deze klimaatrisico’s te lijf gaat. Het
belangrijkste wapen in deze strijd is het zogenoemde Deltaprogramma. Maar dit
programma heeft gevolgen die tot op heden aan de publieke aandacht lijken te
zijn ontsnapt.
Twee maatregelen uit het Deltaprogramma, de deltabeslissing
‘Waterveiligheid’ en de deltabeslissing ‘Ruimtelijke Adaptatie’, knagen
namelijk aan een van meest diepgewortelde basisrechten in de Nederlandse
geschiedenis: het recht op collectieve bescherming tegen
overstromingen. Vooral dunbevolkte provincies waar relatief weinig
economische activiteit plaatsvindt, lijken het kind van de rekening.
Met de deltabeslissing Waterveiligheid stapt Nederland over op nieuwe
normen voor de waterveiligheid. Met deze nieuwe normen wordt explicieter
rekening gehouden met de mogelijke (economische) gevolgen van een overstroming.
Dit betekent dat in gebieden waar het risico groot is - waar veel slachtoffers
kunnen vallen of waar overstromingen veel financiële schade kunnen aanrichten -
de overheid blijft inzetten op dijkversterking. Hiervoor is eerder dit jaar
bedrag uitgetrokken dat met lof werd ontvangen: 20 miljard euro tot 2050.
Maar een vrijwel onbesproken keerzijde van deze deltabeslissing is dat in
‘lage-risicogebieden’ - dunner bevolkte of economisch minder actieve gebieden -
de veiligheidsnormen omlaag gaan. Noord-Hollanders buiten de Randstad hebben in
de toekomst dus minder recht op collectieve bescherming dan Noord-Hollanders in
de Randstad; Friesland ontvangt relatief minder bescherming dan Zuid-Holland.
De deltabeslissing Ruimtelijke Adaptatie heeft een soortgelijk effect. Met deze
beslissing wordt in ‘lage-risicogebieden’ ingezet op ‘ruimtelijke maatregelen’
als alternatief voor dijkversterking. Ruimtelijke maatregelen hebben niet
zozeer als doel overstromingen te voorkomen, maar moeten er voor zorgen dat het
lokale watersysteem de gevolgen van een overstroming beter kan opvangen. Te
denken valt aan het toepassen van waterresistente bouwmaterialen in uw woning,
het verminderen van verhard oppervlak op uw bedrijventerrein en het afkoppelen
van uw regenwaterafvoer op het gemeentelijke rioleringsstelsel. Ruimtelijke
maatregelen doen dus een groter beroep op u als burger.
Bij elkaar opgeteld, heeft het Deltaprogramma tot gevolg dat burgers in
‘lage-risicogebieden’ minder aanspraak kunnen maken op collectieve bescherming
tegen overstromingen dan burgers in ‘hoge-risicogebieden’ terwijl zij
tegelijkertijd moeten mee-investeren in ‘ruimtelijke maatregelen’ om zich te
blijven weren tegen overstromingen.
Deze verandering is vanuit een financieel oogpunt begrijpelijk. Op sommige
plekken is inzetten op ruimtelijke maatregelen ‘kostenefficiënter’ dan overal
de dijken verhogen. Waterbeheer stelt ons land nu eenmaal voor lastige keuzes.
Maar met het Deltaprogramma stuurt de Nederlandse overheid aan op
technocratische besluitvorming over overstromingsrisico’s, waardoor dit soort
besluiten buiten het politieke en publieke debat wordt gehouden.
Tuesday, 24 November 2015
Dutch flood risk management
I recently wrote a short opinion piece about the new Dutch flood risk management, with a fellow researcher from the University of Amsterdam (Emmy Bergsma). It builds upon the work we did in BASE for D2.2, and the analysis I did of Dutch adaptation policy. Flood risk policy is the main developed pillar of Dutch adaptation policy. And Emmy Bergsma's research compares flood risk management in the Netherlands and the USA. The opinion piece has just been published in one of the major Dutch quality newspapers, Trouw.
In short, it's about the upcoming changes in Dutch flood risk management. The Dutch government has decided to make Dutch flood risk management more cost-efficient. That may sound very reasonable and appropriate at first sight. But the lack of public and political discussion about the consequences of that decision is striking. What it will mean is that people living densely populated areas will be entitled to higher protection levels than people living in rural areas. In addition, people living in rural areas will have to organize and fund protection measures themselves, something which used to be collectively organized in the Netherlands, and whilst these regions have not yet been actively informed. The lack of public and political debate about this new flood risk policy jeopardizes the legitimacy and effectiveness of it.
Saturday, 5 September 2015
Media
Last week, there was the
yearly international conference from the Royal Geographical Society (RGS) in
Exeter (from 1-4 Sept). The RGS had selected a couple of papers which they
thought would be interesting for the press. The contribution from me and my
colleague Duncan Russel about our study on the Dawlish railway line was
included in the RGS’ press release. Well and indeed, apparently, it was
interesting for the media! As several approached me for an interview. Within 2
days I had given 3 interviews for radio, 1 for television and 1 for a
newspaper. As addressing the media is pretty new for me, it was quite a steep learning
curve. I realized how intense it is!! It takes quite some concentration and
effort to explain the main points of the study as clear and accessible as
possible and at the same time as short and concise as possible. If you’d like to
have a look at how our study was covered in the media, here are some links:
- The regional newspaper
for the South West, Western Morning News: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Lack-planning-leaves-coastal-services-vulnerable/story-27715996-detail/story.html
- National news radio
programme on BBC 5 Live, Drive, around 1u48min (available until end of
September): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b067w74s
- Regional radio, BBC Radio
Devon, I haven’t been able yet to locate around which time (let me know if you
do) (also available until end of September): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02zddym
- Local radio, Radio
Exe, but I don’t think the clip is available online: http://www.radioexe.co.uk/news-and-features/local-news/climate-change-could-have-caused-dawlish-rail-collapse/
- The clip in the regional
television news programme BBC Spotlight is unfortunately no longer available online
Wednesday, 20 May 2015
ECCA Conference May 2015 Copenhagen
Last week, I was at the European Conference on Climate
Change Adaptation (ECCA), in the lovely city of Copenhagen. There were researchers from many
different perspectives, but all sharing an interest in climate change
adaptation. I observed two strands of research to be quite dominant at the
conference:
1) Research on knowledge
supply. For example in terms of economic assessments, impact assessments,
risk assessments. All more or less under the heading of improved insight into
options, expected effects and events will enable better climate change adaptation.
Which means that there is an underlying assumption that there is currently a
lack of knowledge, and that there is an underlying assumption a certain willingness
or readiness from decision making (or decision influencing) actors to use that
knowledge. An interesting contribution nuancing this idea of knowledge supply came
from James Porter, from the University of Leeds, who presented on a study about
the relationship between knowledge on climate change and actions by local
authorities (in the UK) – summarised in my own words as: knowledge is important
to enable action, but without resources and political support, more knowledge
is not likely to support action.
2) Research on participation,
dialogue, knowledge exchange, learning, co-creation. Of which most research is
more or less centred around the idea that actors are interested in and able to (and
invited to) join a deliberative process around climate change adaptation. And
on the idea that a deliberative process is beneficial to develop and implement
an adaption plan. There was a refreshing contribution from Joanne Vinke-De
Kruijf (from the University of Osnabrueck), who studies the factors why groups,
networks or consortia learn (and what they actually learn) in cases around
water management.
While climate change adaptation is increasingly being
studied and considered in sectors such as agriculture, water management and
nature conservation, there are also sectors which have been studied less in
relation to climate change adaptation. And which have also been less active in climate
change adaptation, such as health, sports and education. Dormant sectors, Mikael Hilden from SYKE in Helsinki, called them.
Where there is still a lot of potential for actors to become more active in addressing
climate change impacts, and for researchers to study these sectors.
At the conference last week, it was as if for many researchers climate
change adaptation is something like a given, as something that is important and
relevant and that obviously will require action. Well, considering the expected climate
change impacts (floods, droughts, heat stress, storm surge impacts), adaptation
may indeed be something wise to consider. But, in practice, climate change
adaptation is not (yet) taking place everywhere, in all sectors, or is
considered by various decision makers at various levels. In comparison to many
other established environment-related topics (such as nature conservation,
agriculture, sustainable development), climate change adaptation is still a relative
newcomer. Established decisionmaking structures may not necessarily be open,
willing or able to include climate change adaption. Wouldn’t this be something
in particular interesting to study? To acknowledge that climate change adaptation
is not automatically addressed everywhere. And to study why existing decisionmaking structures include a relative
newcomer such as climate change adaptation or not?
PS: international academic conferences are essential for academic development. It enables to learn from each other, be introduced to new research, ask questions, follow and participate in debates, meet people, etc. (Unfortunately not replaceable by video conferencing.) However, flying all these researchers around the world obviously does not contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There doesn't seem to be a solution for this insight, put perhaps we could think a bit more about it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)