1. The OECD High Level Risk Forum reviewed the risk of flooding from the Seine River in Paris. A flood in Paris could impact over 5 million people and cause economic damages between 3 to 30 billion Euros. 2. Better coordination of flood prevention policies across different government levels could reduce disaster impacts. There are opportunities to develop an ambitious resilience strategy, including improving flood risk governance and defining long-term financing for prevention. 3. Recommendations include ensuring linkages across flood prevention efforts, defining a clear vision and responsibilities, and improving risk knowledge, urban planning resilience, and infrastructure protection. Developing a strategic financial framework that maximizes coherence could help catalyze existing prevention resources.

1. OECD High Level Risk Forum
Review on the risk of flood from
the Seine river in Paris

2. • 34 governments of the OECD and beyond
– Centres of governments
– Sectoral Ministries (response, prevention)
• Private sector
• International organisations
• High Level Expertise
2
The OECD High Level Risk Forum
A wide network

3. OECD High Level Risk Forum
OBJECTIVES
FORUM’S OBJECTIVES
• Comparative analysis to optimise risk
management policies
• Helping governments to prepare for Major Risks
• Principles for Risk Management
• Partnership with the private sector
• Country reviews of risk management policies

4. 4
img3
Seine flood risk management in Ile-de-
France
Simulation 3D d’une inondation de la Seine à Issy-les-Moulineaux
Source:IAU
Youtube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhT8tM3ABs8

5. International comparison
Cities or country Year River
Return
period
Damages and losses
(Bio €)
Prague 2002 Vlatva 500 y 3,1
New-Orleans 2005 Inondations liées à Katrina 90
UK 2007 Severn et Tamise 200 y 4,6
Brisbane 2011 Brisbane 120 y 11,7
Bangkok 2011 Chao Phraya > 100 y 36,1
New-York 2012 Inondations liées à Sandy 400-800 y 14,8
Central Europe 2013 Danube et Elbe 100 y 12,1
New-Orleans after Katrina 2005
Source: Romain Huret, 2010

6. 6
MAJOR IMPACTS AND CONSEQUENCES
Prague  Long-term interruption of critical networks – 6 months without subway
New-Orléans
 Water stayed several months
 Long term interruption of vital infrastructures - 5 y without hospital
 50% drop of the population
UK
 Definition of a new strategy based on structural measures along with
resilience of critical sectors
Brisbane
 Impact on key sectors of the national economy (mining, tourism, agriculture)
 Mistakes in the governance of major protection infrastructures
Bangkok
 Impacts on international supply chains (car, hard-drive)
 Major governance issues
New-York
 Impact on supply chain and critical networks
 70 000 SMEs went bankrupt due to electricity interruption
 Launch of a massive investment plan in resilience: 20 Bio $ by 2020
Central Europe
 Damage reduction in areas where structural measures had been implemented
post 2002 (eg : Dresden)
Lessons learned

7. 7
What about Paris area?

8. 8
Major assets at risks
463 km2 , 830 000 inhabitants
55 700 companies representing 620 000 emplois
Key government institutions, 295 schools, 79 hospitals, 11 637
power sub-stations, 140 km & 41 subway stations, 3 railway
stations, sub-urban train, 85 bridges, 5 highways and many
secundary roads
Cultural heritage : the Seine parisian banks part of UNESCO
World Heritage, thousands of historical buildings, museums and
art galleries
Environment: wastewater stations, industrial sites SEVESO,
waste disposals, oil deposits

9. A major and lengthy event with large and
numerous consequences
 Direct and indirect impacts on nearly 5 millions citizens
and many companies
 Continuity of government
 Long duration that could exceed a trimester
A significant macroeconomic impact
 3-30 Bio € of direct damages
 0.1 to 3 % cumulated GDP losses over 5 years
 10 000 - 400 000 job losses following the crisis
9
Key messages - impacts

10. 1. An effort to recalibrate, better coordination et adjustment
of public policies could reduce the consequences of such
disaster
2. Many opportunities are converging to engage an
ambitious resilience strategy
Few areas to further develop :
 Inventing a new governance approach for prevention
 Reinforcing prevention through whole-of-society
resilience efforts
 Developing a long term strategy for financing prevention
10
Key message – Policy

11. Coherence of the legal and regulatory
framework
Roles and responsibilities of the different
institutions and organisations
Coordination mechanisms
11
1. Governance issues

12. 1. Governance issues
A governance deficit
 Lack of a strategic and holistic vision
 Fragmented approaches at the
different levels of government
 Sectoral approaches and lack of
coordination accross publiuc policies
 Lack of leadership
Consequences :
Isolated approaches, dispersed efforts, investments
benefits

13. 1. Governance issues
Real opportunities to engage efforts
 Decentralisation process on going
 EU Flood Directive
 Evolving strategic frameworks
 Infrastructure project
 International examples

14. 1. Ensure the appropriate linkages between the various
levels of flood prevention– from the exposed Ile-de-
France metropolis to the river basin.
2. Define an ambitious and mobilising global vision
over the long term together with actionable
principles.
3. Break-down the global vision into precise objectives
and make the stakeholders aware of their
responsibilities.
4. Create effective gateways between the flood risk
management strategy and related public policies.
14
1. Recommandations

15. • Knowledge
• Risk culture
• Urban planning
• Critical infrastructures
• Business continuity
• Green infrastructures
• Protection infrastructures
• Infrastructures de stockage
15
2. Strengthening resilience
NON-STRUCTURAL
STRUCTURAL
Principles of coherence, prioritisation, international
comparison, innovation

16. 16
2. Strengthening resilience
Risk knowledge and risk culture
ASSESSMENT
 Progress in knowledge harmonisation
 Weak risk culture (risk memory, moral hazard)
Responding to the demand
 Companies are in demand of risk information once
risk-aware
 A strong interest of citiozens
Need to increase transparency

17. 17
2. Strengthening resilience
Resilience through urban planning and
business continuity
 Regulatory aspects (Risk Prevention Plans)
 Resilience of critical infrastructures
 Lack of instruments to incentivise resilience in existing
buildings and in the private sector
Opportunities with the Great Paris project

18. 18
2. Strengthening resilience
Structural measures
 Lack of harmonisation and governance deficits
 Equity issue accross territories
 Prioritising investments
Local protections Multiple uses reservoir dams

19. 5. Continue to improve and harmonise risk knowledge and
ensure that risk information is made available.
6. Reinforce the risk culture of citizens, decision-makers and
companies.
7. Improve territorial resilience, using the opportunities
offered by the Grand Paris Project
8. Gradually improve the resilience level of critical networks
and take steps towards preserving the continuity of
business and public services
9. Place the flood protection infrastructures under the
responsibility of a single contracting authority
10.Encourage experimentation with regard to the La Bassée
storage project 19
2. Strengthening resilience
Recommendations

20.  Seine flood risk represents a significant part of average
economic damages at the national level in France
Mean yearly cost of flooding in France: € 1-1,4 Mds
(EPRI), the Seine represents one tenth 20
3. Financing prevention
An important risk: « tail » event & large share
0
1/100
1/50
3/100
1/25
1/20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Périodederetour
Dommages (milliards €)
Avec réservoirs
Sans réservoirs

21. • Existing financing tools for flood prevention in France:
CatNat, Barnier fund, Prevention Plans, Major River
Plans : 300-450 Mio € investments per year
 Low contribution to Seine flood prevention
21
3. Financing prevention
Existing financing tools
• What is the acceptable level of risk, how to prioritise ?

22.  Absence of floods in the last 60 years :
« anesthesia »
 Heterogeneous risk levels: difficulties to finance
costly infrastruictures for a common public good
 Prevention funding not allocated in priority to the
large scale shocks but more to the low return
period events
 Lack of incentives for stakeholders to invest in
prevention before and afetr floodng events (moral
hazard)
 Difficulties to catalyse existing resources in a
coherent approach
3. Financing prevention
An heterogeneous system

23. 23
3. Financing prevention
Elements of a strategic framework
Maximising coherency and synergies through
a multi-criteria strategy
 Fiscally constrained environment
 Need to develop a global financing strategy :
- Long term vision and sustainability
- Contributing to France competitiveness
- Accountability and proprotionnality between
beneficiaries and financial contributors
- Synergyes and coherence with other stategies
- Cost effectiveness
- Equity

24. 11.Support the local of Seine flood risks management
strategy in the Ile-de-France by a clear financial
strategy,
12.Mobilise all the beneficiaries of preventive measures in
a multi-level approach
13.Strengthen efforts to clarify the priority criteria for
prevention funding from State resources
14.To re-examine the impact of the CatNat insurance
regime on flood risk prevention
24
3. Financing prevention
Recommendations

25.  A new organization for flood risk governance
 Engaging a positive dynamic on resilience
 Role of the OECD and the High Level Risk
Forum to facilitate sharing of good practices
 Innovative approach for flood risk
assessment
25
CONCLUSION