Annex A. OECD Checklist for Assessing Flood Governance Arrangements
This checklist is meant to support decision-makers and stakeholders at national, basin and local level in their efforts to self-assess whether flood governance arrangements are performing well and/or whether adjustment are needed.
Checklist for OECD Principle 1: Roles and Responsibilities
Policy framework
How are roles and responsibilities allocated? Generally speaking, role defines your position in an organisation and responsibility defines the functions of your position.
❒ They were not officially allocated, allocation results from historical arrangements
❒ By constitution, national laws or other legal framework
❒ By charter/principles
❒ By contract
❒ Other, specify:
In your case study, which reforms or changes in other policy areas affect the allocation of roles and responsibilities on flood management in particular? Please tick as many as apply in your case study.
❒ Territorial reforms (e.g. decentralisation, regionalisation, recentralisation, etc.)
❒ Regulation (e.g. new regulations, increasing use of ‘’oft' instruments such as gentlemen’s agreements)
❒ New co-operation between public and private partners
❒ Competitiveness/market-oriented reforms (e.g. in the insurance sector)
❒ Financial reform (e.g. less public funding at the city level, changes in procurement systems)
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Is there a dedicated flood policy, indicating goals, responsibilities, resources needed?
❒ Yes
❒ No
Are there flood-related legal and institutional frameworks or regulations in your country?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Have applicable binding and non-binding flood-related international or supranational frameworks and regulations been transposed at the national (or sub-national) level(s)?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Institutions
Who is in charge (formally/informally) of what for the following stages of flood management in your case study? Please indicate as many responsible organisations as relevant for your case study.
Instruments
How are roles and responsibilities regularly reviewed to adapt to changing circumstances and make sure they are always fit? Please tick as many as apply to your case study.
❒ They are not regularly reviewed.
❒ Parliamentary commission
❒ National regulator
❒ Citizen observatory
❒ Revision of flood-risk management policies and plans
❒ Internal meetings within projects
❒ They are not reviewed.
❒ Other, specify:
Which vertical co-ordination mechanisms are in place in your case study to regularly identify and address gaps, overlaps and conflicts of interest regarding roles and responsibilities for flood governance?
❒ Presence of co-ordinating actors
❒ Contractual arrangements
❒ Intermediate bodies or actors
❒ Conferences between local and sub-national flood governance players
❒ Bridging concepts (e.g. multi-layered safety)
❒ Shared databases and information systems
❒ Performance indicators
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Which horizontal co-ordination mechanisms are in place in your case study to manage interdependencies for flood policy design and implementation?
❒ Organisations/tools that bridge knowledge development and decision-making processes (e.g. research institutes, interactive maps, simulation models)
❒ Knowledge multi-stakeholder co-creation processes
❒ Financial transfers or incentives
❒ Inter-municipal or metropolitan collaboration
❒ Informal co-operation around projects
❒ Inter-ministerial co-ordination platforms
❒ Joint financing
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
In your case study, are the effectiveness, efficiency and inclusiveness of such mechanisms monitored and evaluated?
❒ Yes. Please specify how:
❒ No
Impacts
Were the impacts of a fragmentation of roles and responsibilities on the effectiveness of flood-risk governance arrangements assessed in your case study?
❒ Yes. Specify how:
❒ No
In cases where fragmentation is negative and undesired, what were the impacts of a fragmentation of roles and responsibilities on the effectiveness of flood-risk governance arrangements ? Please tick as many as apply to your case study.
Overall, what were the main challenges your case study had to face for Principle 1? Please provide further details and concrete examples.
Checklist for OECD Principle 2: Appropriate scales
Policy Framework
Are there Integrated Water Resources Management policies and strategies in place that address flood management aspects?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
In your case study, are there policies in place to manage floods at the hydrographic scale?
Please tick as many as apply to your case study.
❒ River basin plans
❒ Early-warning systems
❒ Information system
❒ Models and decision support system
❒ Research, development and innovation
❒ Other, specify:
In your case study, are existing plans to manage flood risks consistent with national policies and local conditions?
❒ There are no flood-risk management plans.
❒ Flood-risk management plans are in place but some aspects are contradictory with national policies.
❒ Flood-risk management plans are in place but some aspects are not adapted to local conditions.
❒ Flood-risk management plans are in place and they are aligned with national policies.
❒ Flood-risk management plans are in place and they are adapted to local conditions.
❒ Other, specify:
Institutions
At which scale are the flood management functions primarily managed in your case study?
Instruments
Which multi-level riparian co-operation mechanisms are in place among users, stakeholders and levels of government for the management of floods?
Impacts
What are the challenges towards vertical co-ordination (i.e. co-ordination across administrative levels)? Please tick as many as apply to your case study.
❒ Conflicting agendas, priorities and interests
❒ Capacity gaps
❒ Inconsistent budgeting, procurement and regulatory processes across levels
❒ Language barriers
❒ Unbalanced power, capacities and resources
❒ Legal allocation of powers and responsibilities
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Overall, what were the main challenges your case study had to face for Principle 2? Please provide further details and concrete examples.
Checklist for OECD Principle 3: Policy coherence
Policy Framework
In your case study, which policy areas are the most interdependent with flood management in practice?
Please indicate the policy area(s) where synergies with flood management have been built:
Please provide a description of what has been done.
❒ Environment (including ecosystems, nature conservation and development)
❒ Climate change
❒ Infrastructure
❒ Rural policy
❒ Health
❒ Energy
❒ Agriculture
❒ Industry
❒ Spatial planning
❒ Land use
❒ Water quality
❒ Water supply
❒ Transport/navigation
❒ Urban development
❒ Tourism
❒ Fisheries
❒ Civil protection
❒ Amenity/recreation/culture (architectural and cultural assets, etc.)
❒ Forestry
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Do flood-risk management strategies include:
❒ Costs and benefits
❒ Flood extent
❒ Flood conveyance routes
❒ Areas which have the potential to retain floodwater (e.g. natural floodplains)
❒ Environmental objectives
❒ Soil and water management
❒ Spatial planning
❒ Land use
❒ Nature conservation/nature-based solutions
❒ Water quality
❒ Water supply
❒ Navigation
❒ Infrastructure
❒ Tourism
❒ Fisheries
❒ Amenity/recreation/culture (architectural and cultural assets, etc.)
❒ Flood-risk prevention plans (formulated for industrial facilities, schools, etc.)
❒ Forestry
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Institutions
Is there an inter-ministerial body or institution for co-ordination across flood-related policies?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Instruments
How are barriers to policy coherence identified in your case study?
❒ They are not identified, assessed or addressed.
❒ They are identified through cross-sectoral groups/meetings.
❒ They are identified through cross-sectoral policy reviews.
❒ They are identified through external/independent reviewers.
❒ They are identified by political leaders and/or policy entrepreneurs who have a stake in the issue.
❒ They are identified by citizens or NGOs.
❒ They are identified through risk exercises.
❒ Other, specify:
In your case study, which mechanisms are in place to facilitate coherence and mitigate conflict between flood management policies and other policy sectors?
Are there conflict mitigation and resolution mechanisms to manage trade-offs across flood-related policy areas?
❒ Laws, regulations
❒ Public consultation
❒ Stakeholder groups facilitating collaborative solutions
❒ Not in place
❒ Other, specify:
Impacts
Is there an assessment of the distributed impacts on flood management of decisions taken in other areas, such as urban/spatial development, forestry, wetlands, agriculture or the environment?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
In the case of policy incoherence, what are the impacts on flood management?
❒ Economic costs (e.g. infrastructure investments that could have been avoided with better co-ordination)
❒ Greater risk of human casualties
❒ Social costs (e.g. if measures destroy a public amenity or divide communities “inside” and “outside” a levee)
❒ Environmental costs (e.g. if measures cause geomorphological changes or isolate floodplains)
❒ Transaction costs (e.g. conflict among stakeholders involved in flood management)
❒ Conflicting actions (e.g. urban policies for the development of housing in floodplains vs. flood-management policies using these floodplains for flood discharge)
❒ Reduced implementation capacity
❒ Increase in flood risks
❒ It does not have any impact.
❒ Other, specify:
Are costs due to absent/poor policy coherence evaluated and available to decision makers?
❒ Yes. Please specify how:
❒ No
Overall, what were the main challenges your case study had to face for Principle 3? Please provide further details and concrete examples.
Checklist for OECD Principle 4: Capacity building
Policy Framework
In your case study, which capacities are in place to manage floods today and in the future?
❒ Technical capacity (e.g. modelling, early-warning systems, projections)
❒ Financial capacity (e.g. capacity to allocate funds for the construction of flood defences, willingness and capacity to pay for insurance schemes, capacity to raise taxes)
❒ Infrastructural capacity (e.g. capacity to build green infrastructure, adaptive buildings, retention facilities, dams)
❒ Human capacity (e.g. knowledge, skills, leadership, stakeholder engagement)
❒ Governmental capacity (e.g. departments dedicated to flood-management, policies, co-operation with research institutes)
❒ Multilateral and/or international agreements
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Are there mechanisms used for the hiring of public officials and flood-risk professionals? (tick the box when appropriate)
❒ Merit-based?
❒ Transparent?
❒ Independent from political cycles?
❒ Other, specify:
Are there incentives to create “flood” careers for staff in the public sector?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Are there guidelines or standards for capacity building across authorities at your level?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Are there flood-related networks at the national level?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Institutions
In your case study, how are capacities in flood governance systems assessed in terms of responding to actual problems and needs?
❒ Regular reviews
❒ Public hearings
❒ Commissioning reports
❒ National monitoring
❒ Simulation exercises
❒ They are not assessed.
❒ Other, specify:
How are capacity gaps identified in your case study?
❒ They are not identified or addressed.
❒ Guidelines for ex-ante appraisal are available and used at all levels of government.
❒ Index of technical, financial, infrastructural or human capacity
❒ Studies examining governance capacity at various levels
❒ Post-event reviews
❒ They are not identified.
❒ Other, specify:
How are capacity gaps addressed?
❒ E-government platforms
❒ Peer learning
❒ Policies to strengthen sub-national capacities
❒ Guidance documents
❒ Open, competitive and merit-based hiring (for human capacity)
❒ Hiring of a diverse cross-sectoral skill set
❒ There are not addressed.
❒ Other, specify:
Instruments
In your case study, which mechanisms are in place for the education and training of relevant stakeholders (e.g. floodplain managers, flood-risk professionals)?
❒ None
❒ Information provision; guidebooks
❒ Training and communication support programmes on flood risks
❒ Insurance companies
❒ Local authority networks
❒ Workshops
❒ Other, specify:
Are there decentralised development co-operation mechanisms in place (e.g. twinning, peer-to-peer learning activities, capacity building and knowledge transfer)?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Impacts
Which of the following gaps have an impact on capacity development for flood management in your case study?
❒ Financial resources
❒ Lack of training tools and methodologies
❒ Lack of political will to allocate resources to capacity development
Please specify at which level:
❒ Lack of staff and technical skills
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Overall, what were the main challenges your case study had to face for Principle 4? Please provide further details and concrete examples.
Checklist for OECD Principle 5: Data and information
Policy Framework
Which flood-risk and flood-related data and information are currently being collected for flood management in your case study? Please tick as many as apply to your case study.
❒ Maps of the river basin
❒ Flood-risk maps
❒ Description of the floods which have occurred in the past, including their consequences
❒ Potential adverse consequences of future floods
❒ Scenarios of flood probability and for each, the flood extent, water depths and flow velocity
❒ Flood conveyance routes
❒ Potential adverse consequences associated with flood scenarios, especially number of affected inhabitants, affected economic activity
❒ Vulnerable infrastructure and populations (e.g. elderly, hospitals)
❒ Installations which might cause accidental pollution in case of flooding
❒ Potentially affected protected areas
❒ Areas where floods with a high content of transported sediments and debris floods can occur
❒ Other significant sources of pollution
❒ Environmental needs
❒ Land uses
❒ Navigation
❒ Infrastructure
❒ Institutions
❒ Sources of finance
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Is the flood-risk information system harmonised, integrated, standardised and co-ordinated across relevant agencies and responsible authorities across relevant governance scales?
❒ Yes
❒ No
Are there real-time data and do they guide decision making?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
How are flood-risk and flood-related data and information used to guide decision making?
❒ They are incorporated in flood-risk and flood hazard maps
❒ They are used to develop flood-risk management plans
❒ They are shared within participatory decision-making processes
❒ They are used to assess flood risk
❒ Other, specify:
Institutions
In your case study, who are the main flood-risk and flood-related data and information producers?
❒ Statistical offices
❒ Forecast agencies
❒ Basin agency
❒ Government
❒ Other, specify:
Who are the main flood-risk and flood-related data and information users?
❒ Government. Please specify at which level(s):
❒ Private companies
❒ Urban planners
❒ Inhabitants/citizens
❒ Experts/scientists
❒ Other, specify:
Instruments
How are flood-risk and flood-related data and information shared?
❒ Traditional media (press release, newspaper inserts, reports, radio broadcasts and video presentations)
❒ Web-based technologies (flood-risk information sIms, fora, newsletters, social media, data banks, maps)
❒ Other information and communication technology (SMS, information hotlines)
❒ Open public meetings (e.g. organised by public authorities or flood observatories)
❒ Closed meetings (meetings of river basin organisations, of flood-related associations)
❒ Engaging schools and community groups
❒ They are not shared
❒ Other, specify:
Are there platforms for dialogue between data producers and users?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Do online platforms/tools/agreements exist for experience and knowledge sharing?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Do tools exist to produce, disclose and use flood-related data and information, through innovative ways? (Examples are big/smart/mobile data, digital maps, real-time sensors and monitoring)
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
How are unnecessary data overload and dispersion of information regularly tracked in your case study?
❒ Reviews of data collection, use, sharing and dissemination
❒ Re-prioritisation of the objectives for data collection and data required
❒ Participatory workshops including data producers and users
❒ Data producers and users meetings
❒ They are not being tracked.
❒ Other, specify:
Which co-ordination and experience sharing mechanisms are in place in your case study?
❒ Meetings among organisations and agencies producing flood-related data
❒ High-level meetings on exchange of information between member states before drafting flood-risk assessments, flood hazard maps, flood-risk maps in cases where floods affect international areas
❒ Conferences between data producers and users
❒ Online platforms/knowledge infrastructure
❒ Visits of flood-risk professionals to other areas affected by floods and meeting with colleagues
❒ None of the above
❒ Other, specify:
Are there bottom-up mechanisms to produce and disclose flood-related data and information across levels of government, public, private and non-profit stakeholders?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Impacts
What is the impact of data overload and dispersion of information on flood management?
❒ Overlap: many levels and agencies produce and share the same information
❒ Conflicting data and difficulty to choose what to use to develop policies
❒ Data inconsistencies leading to greater uncertainty in models and scenarios
❒ Delays in processing data
❒ Outdated information
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Overall, what were the main challenges your case study had to face for Principle 5? Please provide further details and concrete examples.
Checklist for OECD Principle 6: Financing
Policy Framework
What is the nature of the major costs related to flood governance in your case study? (Rank from 1, major cost, to 4, minor costs).
Social costs (e.g. social conflicts, population displacement)
Economic costs (e.g. building protection infrastructure, producing and collecting data)
Environmental costs (e.g. impact on ecosystems, land management, etc.)
Institutional costs (e.g. co-ordination with stakeholders)
Are there enough financial revenues to cover operational costs and long-term assets renewal to mitigate floods?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Are there investment plans and programmes and do they guide decision making?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Are there clear budget transparency principles and rules applied at all levels of government?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Do flexible and solidarity mechanisms exist in case of water-related disasters?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
In your case study, what measures have been taken to help ensure availability and sustainability of investments?
❒ Diversification of financial sources
❒ Identification of financial risks and debate about the appropriate fiscal policy course to adopt
❒ Use of innovative financing instruments
❒ Incentives and capacity building to increase the ability of the utilities to charge for water
❒ No measure has been taken
❒ Other, specify:
Institutions
What are the most relevant sources of finance for flood governance in your case study? (Rank from 1, biggest source, to 7, smallest source; N/A when not applicable to your case study).
Public funding (national, regional or local)
Private funding
Local funding (e.g. solidarity funds or more direct contributions from beneficiaries)
Contribution from the beneficiaries (private, public or voluntary organisations or communities)
Taxes on actions that contribute to the flood problem
European funding (e.g. Fund for Regional Development, Cohesion Fund, Social Fund, Agricultural Fund, etc.)
Joint financing between public and private sources
To which strategies are these sources of finance allocated? (Use +++ to indicate high amounts, ++ for medium amounts and + for small amounts)
Instruments
In your case study, how are administrative burdens related to public expenditure regularly being tracked?
❒ They are not being tracked
❒ Audits of financial administrations
❒ Investments in the skills and capacity of staff to perform their roles effectively (line ministries, other institutions)
❒ Other, specify:
Are there measures to minimise unnecessary administrative burdens when collecting and disbursing water-related revenues?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Which mechanisms are used to ensure that practices for budgeting and accounting are sound and transparent and that they provide a clear picture of flood-risk activities and any associated contingent liabilities?
❒ Budget documents and data are open, transparent and accessible
❒ A comprehensive, participative and realistic debate on budgetary choices
❒ No mechanism is used.
❒ Other, specify:
Which mechanisms are used to align multi-annual flood-risk management strategies to annual budgets and medium-term priorities of governments?
❒ Multi-annual FRMSs are not aligned with annual budgets and medium-term priorities of the government
❒ A strong medium-term dimension is included in the budgeting process, beyond the traditional annual cycle
❒ Budget allocations are organised and structured in a way that corresponds readily with national objectives.
❒ Close relationship between Central Budget Authority and flood-related ministries/agencies (e.g. planning ministry)
❒ Mechanisms for reviewing existing expenditure policies, including tax expenditures
❒ None of the above
❒ Other, specify:
Which mechanisms are in place in your case study to encourage the efficient and transparent allocation of flood-risk-related public funds?
❒ Social contracts
❒ Scorecards
❒ Audits
❒ Cost benefit analysis
❒ Reporting
❒ No mechanism is in place.
❒ Other, specify:
In your case study, which mechanisms are in place to assess short-, medium- and long-term investment and operational needs?
❒ Sector reviews
❒ Strategic financial planning
❒ Ex-ante and ex-post evaluation
❒ Economic and affordability studies
❒ Forecasts and projections
❒ “Value for money”
❒ Multi-annual budgeting or planning
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Impacts
What are the main impacts of obscure, ineffective financial governance in your case study?
❒ Build-up of large, unsustainable debts
❒ Financial problems during difficult economic times
❒ Local opposition
❒ Corruption/opaque decision making
❒ Future liabilities for current generations
❒ Lack of consideration of low-cost options (e.g. green infrastructure/permeable surface, instead of large reservoirs)
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Overall, what were the main challenges your case study had to face for Principle 6? Please provide further details and concrete examples.
Checklist for OECD Principle 7: Regulatory frameworks
Policy Framework
In your case study, what is regulated in flood management? Please tick as many as apply to your case study.
❒ Areas which are the subject of flood-risk management plans
❒ Flood-risk management objectives
❒ Flood-risk management measures and their prioritisation
❒ Operation of flood protection measures (dams, retention basins...)
❒ Technical characteristics (e.g. resilience of dykes)
❒ Conditions in which the measures are implemented (e.g. level of acceptable risk)
❒ Interface between water and other areas, in particular land use and management
❒ Stakeholders’ roles and missions
❒ Funding arrangements
❒ Public information and consultation measures/actions taken
❒ Public and private projects increasing the risk of flooding (e.g. floodplain development)
❒ Public and private projects increasing the risk of environmental pollution as a consequence of floods (e.g. plants using dangerous substances)
❒ Other, specify:
In your case study, which enforcement rules, procedures, incentives and tools are used to promote compliance and achieve regulatory objectives?
❒ Incentives/rewards (e.g. reduction of insurance premiums when owners or tenants sign up to flood-warning service and fit measures, such as flood boards)
❒ Specific multilateral discussions and meetings, common agreements
❒ Penalties, sanctions (e.g. fines for owners of buildings which increase flood risk)
❒ Reparations
❒ Requirements to disclose information and inputs used for regulatory decisions
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Institutions
Which institutions bear these key regulatory functions?
❒ International: International River basin committee, European Union
❒ Basin: River basin committee
❒ National: Ministry of Environment, Environment Agency, inter-ministerial flood committee
❒ Local (municipalities, local drainage boards, local water authorities)
❒ Other, specify:
Do regulatory authorities have clearly stated mandates and powers?
❒ Yes
❒ No
Are regulatory authorities endowed with the necessary resources?
❒ Yes
❒ No
Are there reviews of the governance and performance of regulatory authorities?
❒ Yes
❒ No
Instruments
In your case study, which regulatory tools are in place to encourage the quality of regulatory processes and make the results accessible to the public, where appropriate?
❒ Participation: providing meaningful opportunities (including online) for the public to contribute to the process of preparing draft regulatory proposals
❒ Transparency: ensuring that regulations are comprehensible and clear and that parties can easily understand their rights and obligations
❒ Mechanisms/institutions for oversight of procedures/goals, support and implementation of regulatory policy
❒ Regulatory Impact Assessment in the early stages of the policy process
❒ Reports on the performance of regulatory policy and reform programmes
❒ Reviews of existing regulations (including consideration of costs and benefits)
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Which remedies can be claimed through access to justice?
❒ No remedies can be claimed
❒ Social interest litigation
❒ Damage compensation
❒ Ombudsman
❒ Other, specify:
Are evaluation mechanisms in place to systematically and regularly assess performance/effectiveness, gaps and overlaps in the regulatory framework? (E.g. areas with regulatory gaps, incoherent and/or contradictory objectives, deficient implementation and/or limited enforcement, overlaps/duplication of responsibilities, etc.)
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Where self-regulation mechanisms exist, are they subject to regular performance assessment?
❒ Yes
❒ No
Are there co-ordination instruments between flood relevant ministries and bodies to improve regulatory processes?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Impacts
In your case study, what are the impacts of un-co-ordinated, irrelevant and ineffective regulatory frameworks?
❒ Conflicts over roles and responsibilities
❒ Increased policy complexity leading to confusion when it comes to their implementation
❒ Costs of implementing regulatory frameworks overcoming the benefits
❒ Authorities adopting an “I-choose-what-I-prefer” approach
❒ Distrust towards actors bearing regulatory functions
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Are flood-related legislations subject to regulatory impact assessment?
❒ Yes
❒ No
Overall, what were the main challenges your case study had to face for Principle 7? Please provide further details and concrete examples.
Checklist for OECD Principle 8: Innovative governance
Policy Framework
Which innovative flood governance practices are implemented in your case study?
❒ Experimentation and pilot-testing
❒ Creating structures and institutions for implementing improved flood-resilience technologies (e.g. door guards, flood resilient cavity wall insulation, mobile barriers)
❒ Innovative partnerships (e.g. consortiums bringing together governments, knowledge institutes and the business sector)
❒ Innovative education and awareness-raising activities (e.g. involving school children in flood-control curriculum and flood control games)
❒ Innovation labs
❒ Academic research (e.g. models estimating the effectiveness of evacuation decisions, evaluation of risk exposure considering evolving risk patterns)
❒ Measures to restore trust in the government (e.g. transparency, accountability)
❒ Methods that support governments, business, and individual stakeholders to determine their optimal or acceptable levels of risks
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Which policy frameworks and/or incentives are in place to encourage innovation in flood management practices and processes?
❒ Incentives for innovative financing
❒ Frameworks that incentivise experimentation
❒ Pilot-testing to draw lessons and share experience prior to generalising a given reform or process at a larger scale
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Are there reviews to evaluate the state of play of and potential for technical and non-technical innovation, costs/benefits of innovation, as well as regulations and standards hindering innovation?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Institutions
Are there institutions encouraging bottom-up initiatives, dialogue and social learning as well as experimentation in flood management at different levels?
❒ Multi-stakeholder platforms
❒ Entities sharing knowledge and experience
❒ Entities encouraging the science-policy interface
❒ Entities enabling crowdsourcing
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Instruments
In your case study, which mechanisms to promote social learning are in place to facilitate dialogue and consensus-building?
❒ Networking platforms
❒ Social media
❒ Information and communication technologies (ICTs)
❒ User-friendly interface
❒ Digital maps
❒ Big data, smart data and open data
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Which innovative ways to co-operate are in place in your case study, to pool resources and capacity, build synergies across sectors and search for efficiency gains?
❒ Metropolitan governance
❒ Inter-municipal collaboration
❒ Urban-rural partnerships
❒ Performance-based contracts
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Which science-policy interface is in place in your case study to contribute to better flood governance and bridge the divide between scientific findings and flood governance practices?
❒ Science-policy platforms
❒ Organisations or tools that bridge knowledge development and decision-making processes (e.g. research institutes, interactive maps, simulation models)
❒ Knowledge multi-stakeholder co-creation processes
❒ Scientists involved in drafting policy briefs
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Are information and communication technologies used to guide better public action in flood management, and how?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Impacts
In your case study, what are the main barriers to innovative governance?
❒ Lack of integration of scattered monitoring networks
❒ Uncertainty in meteorological forecasts for flood and drought risk assessment
❒ Lack of integration of different dimensions of risk
❒ Insufficient knowledge on the economic value of risk
❒ Lack of awareness and preparedness of populations to deal with risks
❒ Fragmentation of institutions and responsibilities
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Overall, what were the main challenges your case study had to face for Principle 8? Please provide further details and concrete examples
Checklist for OECD Principle 9: Integrity and transparency
Policy Framework
In terms of integrity and transparency, where has the emphasis been put in your case study? (Rank from 1, major emphasis, to 4, no emphasis)
Public procurement
Costs
Quality of infrastructure
Levels of risks
When roles and responsibilities for flood management and risk reduction are delegated to dedicated public or private entities, are there contractual arrangements between organising and executive bodies?
❒ Yes
❒ No
Are there provisions related to transparency and integrity in national legislation?
❒ Yes
❒ No
Are there provisions for whistle-blower protection in legal and institutional frameworks?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Which legal and institutional frameworks that hold decision makers and stakeholders accountable are in place in your case study?
❒ There are no frameworks that hold decision-makers and stakeholders accountable.
❒ Right to information
❒ Public procurement
❒ Transposition on applicable international conventions
❒ Parliamentary commissions
❒ Other, specify:
Are norms, codes of conduct or charters on integrity and transparency in national or local contexts in place and their implementation monitored?
❒ They are not in place.
❒ They are in place but not monitored.
❒ They are in place and monitored.
Are there requirements in place for regular financial disclosure of assets, income and interests?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Institutions
Are there independent authorities (not necessarily water-specific) and supreme audit institutions that can investigate water-related issues and ensure proper enforcement (e.g. policy effectiveness and procurement)?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Instruments
Which accountability and control mechanisms for transparent flood-risk policy making and implementation are in place in your case study?
❒ Financial disclosure of income, assets and interests
❒ Conflict-of-interest restrictions
❒ Freedom of information
❒ Immunity provisions
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Are corruption risks and actual corruption in the water sector (e.g. manipulation of knowledge and information, bribery, extortion) diagnosed?
❒ Yes. Please specify how:
❒ No
Are potential drivers of corruption and corruption risks regularly diagnosed and mapped in all institutions involved in flood management at different levels, especially:
❒ They are not diagnosed and mapped.
❒ Identification of corruption risk areas
❒ Identification of internal and external drivers
❒ Evaluation of the frequency and potential severity of risks
❒ Risks prioritisation
❒ Action plan using online or offline platforms
❒ Other, specify:
In your case study, how are integrity and transparency gaps regularly identified and addressed?
❒ They are not identified and addressed.
❒ Multi-stakeholder approaches
❒ Integrity scans/pacts
❒ Risk analysis
❒ Risk maps
❒ Auditable anti-corruption plans
❒ Social witnesses
❒ Other, specify:
Impacts
In your case study, how is the impact of corruption assessed in terms of environmental, social and economic costs?
❒ Water Integrity Scan
❒ Assessment of integrity risks
❒ Independent investigation
❒ It is not being assessed.
❒ Other, specify:
Overall, what were the main challenges your case study had to face for Principle 9? Please provide further details and concrete examples
Checklist for OECD Principle 10: Stakeholder engagement
Policy Framework
In your case study, who are the stakeholders involved in flood-related decision making?
❒ Government (e.g. ministries, agencies and authorities at different levels)
❒ Private stakeholders (e.g. water industry, insurance companies)
❒ Non-governmental and non-profit organisations (e.g. Flood Action Group)
❒ Experts (e.g. scientists and knowledge institutes specialised in flood management)
❒ Citizens, inhabitants of flood-prone areas
❒ Land users, land owners
❒ Youth
❒ Under-represented categories (youth, the poor, women, indigenous people, domestic users)
❒ Newcomers (property developers, institutional investors)
❒ Other, specify:
Which legal and institutional frameworks, organisational structures and responsible authorities conducive to stakeholder engagement are in place in your case study?
❒ Stakeholder engagement is a requirement prior to any project.
❒ Existence of a basin committee including representatives of the various stakeholders
❒ Multistakeholder fora
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Institutions
Was a stakeholder mapping carried out to make sure that all those who have a stake in the outcome or that are likely to be affected are clearly identified, and their responsibilities, core motivations and interactions understood?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Are the ultimate line of decision making, the objectives of stakeholder engagement and the expected use of inputs clearly defined?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Which stakeholder engagement structures and/or mechanisms are in place in your case study, and at which stage of development? Please tick as many as apply to your case study.
In your case study, at which scale are these efforts carried out:
Are there mechanisms in place to engage with scientists in decision making?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Instruments
Which monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are in place to assess the process and outcomes of stakeholder engagement to learn, adjust and improve accordingly?
❒ Cost-benefit analysis
❒ Questionnaires
❒ Satisfaction surveys
❒ Interviews
❒ Participant observation
❒ (Regular) meetings with stakeholders
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Are stakeholder engagement mechanisms flexible to adapt to changing circumstances?
❒ Yes. Please specify how:
❒ No
Are there mechanisms or regular assessments of stakeholder engagement costs or obstacles at large?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Is needed information for result-oriented stakeholder engagement shared?
❒ Yes. Please specify how:
❒ No
Do tailored communication strategies exist for relevant stakeholders, including the general public, regarding all aspects of flood management?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Impacts
In your case study, what are the main barriers to stakeholder engagement in flood management?
❒ Stakeholder-based barriers (e.g. lack of institutional support, a “closed” institutional culture, lack of flexibility for open and transparent discussions due to unclear lines of accountability, lack of capacity of government to explain/persuade/co-ordinate to stakeholders)
❒ Time-related barriers (e.g. stakeholders engaged only at the later stage of the policy cycle)
❒ Barriers caused by power inequalities (e.g. power imbalances, consultation capture)
❒ Financial barriers
❒ Scepticism towards the stakeholder engagement process (e.g. not seen as seeking genuine input)
❒ Lack of transparency of the decision-making process
❒ Information about flood-risk or involvement mechanisms do not fit with the targeted audience
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Overall, what were the main challenges your case study had to face for Principle 10? Please provide further details and concrete examples.
Checklist for OECD Principle 11: Trade-offs between users, places and generations
Policy Framework
What are the main trade-offs linked to flood management in your case study?
❒ Rural-urban trade-offs
❒ Upstream-downstream trade-offs
❒ Policy trade-offs
❒ Ecological trade-offs
❒ Temporal trade-offs
❒ Risk-risk trade-offs
❒ Flood-water supply trade-offs
❒ Flood-energy generation trade-offs
❒ Flood-land development trade-offs (e.g. housing growth)
❒ Exposed pre-flood damage trade-offs
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Are there formal provisions or legal frameworks encouraging equity across policies, rural and urban areas, and generations, etc.?
❒ Transposition of international binding regulations
❒ Transposition of international non-binding regulations
❒ Soft law (e.g. sustainable development goals, new urban agenda)
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Institutions
Is there an Ombudsman or institution(s) (not necessarily water-specific) to protect vulnerable groups (mediating disputes and managing trade-offs when necessary)?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Instruments
Which mechanisms are in place in your case study to ensure that the main trade-offs are addressed?
Checklist for OECD Principle 12: Monitoring and evaluation
Policy Framework
What, in respect to flood-risk management strategies and flood-risk governance arrangements, is monitored and evaluated?
❒ Enforcement of rules and regulations
❒ Flood-risk management policies and plans
❒ Effects and effectiveness of measures
❒ Roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders involved in flood management
❒ Finances and budgeting
❒ Stakeholder engagement
❒ Operational management of flood-related infrastructure
❒ None
❒ Other, specify:
Are there policy frameworks in place promoting regular monitoring and evaluation of flood policy and governance?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Are there provisions or incentives for monitoring by civil society?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Are the results of the monitoring and evaluation process shared with the wider public?
❒ Yes. Please specify how:
❒ No
Institutions
Who monitors and evaluates flood-risk management strategies and flood-risk governance arrangements in your case study?
❒ Court of Justice ruling for non-compliance
❒ Basin Organisations
❒ National authorities: controller and auditor general
❒ Private stakeholders: auditing and consultancy firms
❒ Independent experts (e.g. scientists and knowledge institutes specialised in flood management, consultants)
❒ Citizens, inhabitants of flood-prone areas (e.g. online evaluation of flood policies)
❒ No one
❒ Other, specify:
Are there financial resources available to train civil society organisations in project monitoring?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
Instruments
Which monitoring and reporting mechanisms effectively guiding decision-making are in place in your case study?
❒ Reviews of flood-risk management plans
❒ Review of previous flood events
❒ Strategic meetings
❒ Online reporting platforms
❒ No mechanism is in place.
❒ Other, specify:
In your case study, do reviews of flood-risk management plans include:
❒ Any changes or updates since the publication of the previous version of the flood-risk management plan
❒ An assessment of the progress made towards the achievement of the objectives
❒ A description of, and explanation for, any measures foreseen in the earlier version of the flood-risk management plan which were planned to be undertaken and have not been taken forward
❒ A description of any additional measures since the publication of the previous version of the flood-risk management plan
❒ None
Are there agreed-upon performance indicators?
❒ Yes. Please specify:
❒ No
In your case study, how are the monitoring and evaluation results shared?
❒ Traditional media (press release, newspaper inserts, reports, radio broadcasts and video presentations)
❒ Web-based technologies (flood information systems, fora, newsletters, social media, data banks, maps, websites)
❒ Other information and communication technology (SMS, information hotlines)
❒ Open public meetings (e.g. organised by public authorities or flood observatories)
❒ Closed meetings (meetings of the river basin organisation, of flood-related associations)
❒ Results are not shared.
❒ Other, specify:
Impacts
What are the main challenges to robust monitoring and evaluation in your case study?
❒ Lack of frameworks which are sufficiently generic to allow comparison and sufficiently specific to adapt to each case
❒ Lack of instruments
❒ Large amounts of data
❒ Disconnection between monitoring and evaluation procedures and policy making and implementation
❒ Lack of resources allocated to monitoring and evaluation
❒ None
❒ Other, specify: