Implementation process
By looking at the the activities, actors and methods/approaches used, this section will provide a better understanding of the the implementation process of the MLS approach. We will look describe the point of departure, describe who was involved (when, why and how) and what key decisive moments there were.
Point of departure of FRM strategies
Desired score to reach per layer in this pilot (Baseline survey, 2019).
Stakeholders involved
- Roskilde Municipality
- The Danish Emergency Management Agency (DEMA)
- The police
- The utilities company
- Landowner Association
- The Danish Storm Council
- The Danish Red Cross
- Insurance & Pension Denmark (IDP)
- Volunteers (local people)
- Danish Coastal Authority (DCA)
- University College Copenhagen
- East Zealand's Emergency Agency
- Home owners' association in Jyllinge Nordmark
- Households in the area
Role of key actors
Before the pilot started, the expectations of the Danish Coastal Authority (DCA) for cooperation were low because they thought that stakeholders would not be interested to have discussions with them or answer the questionnaires. The reason behind is the complicated political situation in Jtyllinge Nordmark regarding the establishment of a dike in a Natura 2000 area. Additionally, the citizens were already bothered a lot by researchers and journalists after the flooding in 2013. However, currently the local communities are very engaged. This may be influenced by the fact that people living in this area are rich and well educated. Moreover, the perception of flooding is also different on the west coast of Jutland. On the west coast people experience flooding more often, they learnt to live with the water. But the response rate was high and some people even approached the DCA to be interviewed.
The main purpose of the Danish Coastal Authority is to serve the Ministry of Environment and Food and make sure that the Danish population is aware of the flood risk, and to maintain some dikes on west coast as well. During FRAMES, the responsibility of the DCA is to advise authorities on risk reduction. There are several governmental units who know about FRM from the sea, regional advisors for municipalities, local emergency management, sewage companies. Not too much was done on response and recovery. However, the DCA decided to give more importance to this topic as well because of climate change: response and recovery should be part of risk reduction. In the risk reduction phase you should start planning for response and recovery already. Until now risk reduction was mainly taking prevention measures, layer 1. The DCA avoids to work directly with civilians to avoid political problems with municipalities.
Other important actors in this pilot are:
• The Danish Storm Councill is an independent Council who handles cases concerning three types of natural catastrophes: storm surge, flooding from waterways and lakes and windfall. The Storm Surge Council in Denmark determines whether or not it is a flood surge or if it is just a storm. A flood surge should have a return period of 20 years event to make sure that communities get compensated by the insurance companies.
• Municipality needs to know what is its responsibility in the recovery process. Municipality informs communities about what do to in case of flooding and recovery.
• The Insurance & Pension Denmark (IPD) is the Danish trade association for insurance companies and pension funds. The insurance companies process the claims of the damages and pay back the local communities to rebuild the houses.
• The Danish Emergency Management Agency has a specific role, very focused on response, once the water starts to retreat, they will leave the area. Once they know no human life is at stake or no vital infrastructure is in danger they will back up and drive home again even though there are people with water in their houses. They are making at the moment some guideline made on how to manage the volunteers groups to make sure that they come for the right reason and if they are aware of the liability.
• The Danish Red Cross is involved in international projects but they also helped in the recovery after the flood in 2013. They can create local groups to help in the emergency planning. The Red Cross did a whole study on the psychological aspects of the flood. For instance, there was a warning this year and they did a survey to the local doctors. It seems that there is an increased in the number people of people visiting the doctor to ask for medication that can relax (sleeping piles) because they are nervous.
• The police has the role to evacuate people during emergencies.
• The National Emergency Management group, the police and the fire fighters form the crisis management group. They have the technical equipment needed. There is also a solidarity group of volunteers of retired fire fighters, police, and scouts.
• The sewage companies do not have too much to say in the recovery process, they have a role in prevention.
Main activities
Step 1: draft + sent out questionnaire
Questionnaires were sent out by email in Feb 2019 to 450-550 households including flooded houses (200-300) and not flooded.
The people who were not flooded called to ask if it was needed for them to answer the questionnaire. The purpose was to find out their experiences after the flooding, why the process was so slow, what went well and what didn’t go well and find out the barriers. Some questions were like this: did you know before the flood who could you contact, did you know what to do, did you know what you were allowed to do legally, where did you see improvements, which stakeholders would you like to see involve more, what information did you need, how would you prefer to get the information, who did you receive info from, where people live, how did you handle that, who handled it, what can be expected, if they were interested to be part of a local group of volunteers to help in recovery, if they received help from the Red Cross and if they would contact them again. The questionnaire also included questions about rehousing: who was in charge of doing it, what went well, what didn’t go well, how long were you rehoused and what could have been done to shorten this time. There was not information about these issues, the barriers of having to live in a non-permanent house because some of them were living in construction containers.
DCA also asked more or less the same questions about the municipalities and insurance companies: did you receive any help, what kind of help, what kind of help do you prefer to receive in the future and how did you experienced the whole process. The aim was to find out what kind of stakeholders citizens expect more from and also from which ones they received help. They were also asked who do you think is responsible of the recovery process. The answer was very interesting because they all believed is the Storm Surge Council responsible of it.
This questionnaire will unveil how and why the recovery process was obstructed. The focus will also be on the psychological aspects of floods. DCA got reply/feedback from 150 household out of 550 (27%). The answers were received recently (few days before the interview) and they show very clear that insurance companies are getting the biting and municipalities not giving enough information. Based on the answers, 65% were flooded in 2013, 83% were rehoused, some of them were rehoused up to 2-3 years. Interviewees also replied that the only good thing for the recovery / the rehousing was the bond of local community. They were asked overall how did they experience the rehousing period and most of them said ‘bad or very bad’, only 3% thought that it was good. 92% said of people said that they were not aware of what to do to recover. No negative replies were received but the reader could feel the emotions of people through in the answers. University College Copenhagen will further analyze the outcomes of the questionnaires in November/December 2019.
Step 2: Stakeholder analysis
Based on the answers provided via the questionnaires, the DCA and University College Copenhagen will do a stakeholder analysis.
Step 3. Interview the main stakeholders to get their side of it.
The University College Copenhagen will conduct 8-10 qualitative interviews with the main stakeholders in November/ December 2019: The Danish Red Cross, the Landowners Association, Storm Surge Council. Further, they will conduct two focus gro
up interviews with citizens in the area.
Step 4: Draft guidelines for future events
Develop a step by step guide using the questionnaire, the qualitative interviews and the focus group interviews. The guide is to make clear what do to in a flood recovery situation because it’s not clear in Denmark: who to contact, who is responsible, what authorities could do to improve their capacity, or what other new organizations could be helpful. For instance, the Danish Red Cross went to help in the area after the flood. However, they are not used to do this type of work in Denmark because they work a lot internationally. Thus, they tried to take methods from 3rd world countries and use them in the Danish setting instead. They would create groups of local emergency management units. The civilians living in the area would help out in case of flooding, talking to people, make them aware of the situation. There is also interest to find out more on the psychological part of it. There are cases in the area of ‘flood children’, children that whenever it rains in the area they are afraid that they would be flooded again. The Red Cross did a whole project on the psychological aspects of the flood.
The Red Cross had the issue that they received volunteers coming from other areas to help after the flood in 2013 but they did not have anyone to coordinate them, they did not know what to do with them. DCA is trying to collaborate with the British partners on developing such guide because they have a nice guide already. It’s very clear in UK what to do, who to contact, when to take photos, when to start cleaning up the floor. In Denmark they had no idea, they waited for several days without doing anything because they were not sure what they were allowed to do. That depends probably on the rules of different insurance companies: one would allow to start cleaning up the house yourself, others can take longer to come out and have a look at the house. The population was quite confused on what actually they were allowed to do, and who will make sure that they will have a place to live in. The situation was very unclear whose responsibility is: local communities, municipalities, or insurance companies.