The EU floods directive in Sweden: opportunities for integrated and participatory flood risk planning

Abstract

This study analyses the implementation of the EU Floods Directive in Sweden. The question here centres on the possibilities promoted by the directive for sustainable flood risk management, with an emphasis on integrated and participatory management forms. Key persons are interviewed, using a set of criteria for sustainable river basin management as a theoretical framework. The study shows that work in this area is guided by a wide array of values, and that the involved experts provide a broad knowledge basis for this work. The need for better coordination between authorities, pieces of legislation and policy fields however remains critical while the merits of participatory planning approaches are not yet sufficiently utilised. One of the primary tasks here is to develop a shared understanding of the formal context and roles of the process while also developing forms for effective collaboration both within the new administration and between the administration and other key actors, most importantly the municipalities. The case of Sweden can provide useful insights into this process for other member states.

Exploring Science–Policy Interactions in a Technical Policy Field: Climate Change and Flood Risk Management in Austria, Southern Germany, and Switzerland

“…Against the above, we find that the influence of experts on flood risk governance can best be understood as being "socially embedded" [131] or "contextually embedded" [36]. The notion of "social embeddedness" [131] emphasizes that "expertise and evidence [need to be seen as] socially embedded in authority relations and cultural contexts" (p. 259).…”

The Sustainable Procedure Framework for Disaster Risk Management: Illustrated by the Case of the EU Floods Directive in Sweden

“…A full account of the method used to apply the Sustainable Procedure Framework to the analysis of the procedures of implementing the EU Floods Directive in Sweden is provided by Hedelin (2015a). The FD study was based on interviews with the key persons responsible for designing and leading the work of the FD in Sweden at the national and regional levels:…”

Complexity is no excuse

“…For example, it has been shown that the implementation of the WFD and the FD is characterised by ambiguous and heavily overlapping mandates, unbalanced administrative and operational powers and democratic deficits (Hammer et al 2011;Hedelin and Lindh 2008;Hedelin 2015b;Lundqvist 2004). Through the directives, there has been a movement from local representative democratic decisionmaking towards regional expert-based decision-making ( (Hedelin and Lindh 2008;Hedelin 2015b). Furthermore, a key problem identified is that the WFD does not support explicit handling of value trade-offs related to water management decisions (Hedelin 2008a).…”

“…This has resulted in a situation where trade-offs are overshadowed by questions of data shortage and expertise (Hedelin 2008a;Hedelin and Lindh 2008). (Hedelin and Lindh 2008;Hedelin 2015b).…”

“…The studies have also delivered practical advice on how to ensure that the studied practices are better assessed in relation to the two selected SD principles (Hedelin 2008a;Hedelin and Lindh 2008;Hedelin 2015b). One recommendation is to reformulate the environmental objectives of the EU Water Framework Directive to include value trade-offs.…”