Solidarity in water management

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Adaptation to climate change can be an inclusive and collective, rather than an individual effort. The choice for collective arrangements is tied to a call for solidarity. We distinguish between one-sided (assisting community members in need) and two-sided solidarity (furthering a common interest) and between voluntary and compulsory solidarity. We assess the strength of solidarity as a basis for adaptation measures in six Dutch water management case studies. Traditionally, Dutch water management is characterized by compulsory two-sided solidarity at the water board level. Since the French times, the state is involved through compulsory national solidarity contributions to avoid societal disruption by major floods. In so far as this furthers a common interest, the contributions qualify as two-sided solidarity, but if it is considered assistance to flood-prone areas, they also qualify as one-sided solidarity. Although the Delta Programme explicitly continues on this path, our case studies show that solidarity continues to play an important role in Dutch water management in the process of adapting to a changing climate, but that an undifferentiated call for solidarity will likely result in debates over who should pay what and why. Such discussions can lead to cancellation or postponement of adaptation measures, which are not considered to be in the common interest or result in an increased reliance on local solidarity.

Rainproof cities in the Netherlands: approaches in Dutch water governance to climate-adaptive urban planning

“…The need for cooperation and exchange of good practices as well as the idea that landowners and other relevant actors should not shift water problems to neighbouring areas lie at the heart of Dutch water management (Keessen et al, 2016). This is also reflected in municipal policies stipulating that the owner of a plot of land may not redirect rainwater to land belonging to a neighbour (Municipality of Utrecht, 2016b).…”

Limits to change – institutional dynamics of Dutch flood risk governance

“…Firstly, the discourse dimension is characterised by a strong, historically developed narrative that defines the government as the provider of safety that manages the collective task of coastal and fluvial flooding based on the principle of solidarity (Keessen et al, 2016). This discourse is widely accepted and taken for granted.…”

Effects of hydrological changes on cooperation in transnational catchments: the case of the Syr Darya

“…It is important to note that what is perceived as fair depends on the normative system that is prevalent (Driessen & Van Rijswick, 2011: Keessen, Hamer, Van Rijswick, & Wiering, 2013Tennekes, Driessen, Van Rijswick, & Van Bree, 2014;Van Doorn-Hoekveld, 2014;. While from a solidarity perspective it is considered fair that people in low-risk areas also contribute to flood protection measures, if social equity is interpreted as 'beneficiary pays', the situation will be perceived as fair if contributions are based on risk (Keessen et al, 2016). But market-based mechanisms and solidarity are not mutually exclusive; an insurance-based compensation scheme can be strongly based on the solidarity principle, provided that residents in low-risk areas also contribute to the scheme and that a risk differentiation exists to discourage building in high-risk areas.…”