TY - JOUR A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Kunz, Michael A1 - Muehr, Bernhard A1 - Mueller, Meike A1 - Otto, Antje A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Schroeter, Kai T1 - Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013 JF - Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability N2 - Widespread flooding in June 2013 caused damage costs of (sic)6 to 8 billion in Germany, and awoke many memories of the floods in August 2002, which resulted in total damage of (sic)11.6 billion and hence was the most expensive natural hazard event in Germany up to now. The event of 2002 does, however, also mark a reorientation toward an integrated flood risk management system in Germany. Therefore, the flood of 2013 offered the opportunity to review how the measures that politics, administration, and civil society have implemented since 2002 helped to cope with the flood and what still needs to be done to achieve effective and more integrated flood risk management. The review highlights considerable improvements on many levels, in particular (1) an increased consideration of flood hazards in spatial planning and urban development, (2) comprehensive property-level mitigation and preparedness measures, (3) more effective flood warnings and improved coordination of disaster response, and (4) a more targeted maintenance of flood defense systems. In 2013, this led to more effective flood management and to a reduction of damage. Nevertheless, important aspects remain unclear and need to be clarified. This particularly holds for balanced and coordinated strategies for reducing and overcoming the impacts of flooding in large catchments, cross-border and interdisciplinary cooperation, the role of the general public in the different phases of flood risk management, as well as a transparent risk transfer system. Recurring flood events reveal that flood risk management is a continuous task. Hence, risk drivers, such as climate change, land-use changes, economic developments, or demographic change and the resultant risks must be investigated at regular intervals, and risk reduction strategies and processes must be reassessed as well as adapted and implemented in a dialogue with all stakeholders. KW - August 2002 flood KW - Central Europe KW - Floods Directive KW - governance KW - June 2013 flood KW - risk management cycle Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08547-210251 SN - 1708-3087 VL - 21 SP - 8612 EP - 8614 PB - Resilience Alliance CY - Wolfville ER - TY - THES A1 - Janetschek, Hannah T1 - Water development programs in India T1 - Entwicklungszusammenarbeit im Wassersektor Indiens BT - governance processes and effectiveness BT - Governanceprozesse und Effektivität N2 - In the past decades, development cooperation (DC) led by conventional bi- and multilateral donors has been joined by a large number of small, private or public-private donors. This pluralism of actors raises questions as to whether or not these new donors are able to implement projects more or less effectively than their conventional counterparts. In contrast to their predecessors, the new donors have committed themselves to be more pragmatic, innovative and flexible in their development cooperation measures. However, they are also criticized for weakening the function of local civil society and have the reputation of being an intransparent and often controversial alternative to public services. With additional financial resources and their new approach to development, the new donors have been described in the literature as playing a controversial role in transforming development cooperation. This dissertation compares the effectiveness of initiatives by new and conventional donors with regard to the provision of public goods and services to the poor in the water and sanitation sector in India. India is an emerging country but it is experiencing high poverty rates and poor water supply in predominantly rural areas. It lends itself for analyzing this research theme as it is currently being confronted by a large number of actors and approaches that aim to find solutions for these challenges . In the theoretical framework of this dissertation, four governance configurations are derived from the interaction of varying actor types with regard to hierarchical and non-hierarchical steering of their interactions. These four governance configurations differ in decision-making responsibilities, accountability and delegation of tasks or direction of information flow. The assumption on actor relationships and steering is supplemented by possible alternative explanations in the empirical investigation, such as resource availability, the inheritance of structures and institutions from previous projects in a project context, gaining acceptance through beneficiaries (local legitimacy) as a door opener, and asymmetries of power in the project context. Case study evidence from seven projects reveals that the actors' relationship is important for successful project delivery. Additionally, the results show that there is a systematic difference between conventional and new donors. Projects led by conventional donors were consistently more successful, due to an actor relationship that placed the responsibility in the hands of the recipient actors and benefited from the trust and reputation of a long-term cooperation. The trust and reputation of conventional donors always went along with a back-up from federal level and trickled down as reputation also at local level implementation. Furthermore, charismatic leaders, as well as the acquired structures and institutions of predecessor projects, also proved to be a positive influencing factor for successful project implementation. Despite the mixed results of the seven case studies, central recommendations for action can be derived for the various actors involved in development cooperation. For example, new donors could fulfill a supplementary function with conventional donors by developing innovative project approaches through pilot studies and then implementing them as a supplement to the projects of conventional donors on the ground. In return, conventional donors would have to make room the new donors by integrating their approaches into already programs in order to promote donor harmonization. It is also important to identify and occupy niches for activities and to promote harmonization among donors on state and federal sides. The empirical results demonstrate the need for a harmonization strategy of different donor types in order to prevent duplication, over-experimentation and the failure of development programs. A transformation to successful and sustainable development cooperation can only be achieved through more coordination processes and national self-responsibility. N2 - In der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (EZ) wurden in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten herkömmliche bi- und multilaterale EZ-Geber durch eine Vielzahl kleinerer, privater oder privat-öffentlicher Geber ergänzt. Es stellt sich nun die Frage nach der Effektivität dieser neuen Geber im Vergleich zu den bisherigen. Die neuen Geber setzen ebenfalls EZ-Maßnahmen um und haben sich einem Mehr an Pragmatismus, Innovation und Flexibilität verschrieben. Sie stehen jedoch auch in der Kritik, die Funktion der lokalen Zivilgesellschaft zu schwächen und in fragilen Kontexten eine intransparente und oft umstrittene Alternative zur staatlichen Daseinsvorsorge darzustellen. Das transformative Potential dieser neuen Geber durch zusätzliche EZ-Gelder und für bessere Entwicklung ist in der Literatur umstritten. In der vorliegenden Dissertation erfolgt ein Vergleich der neuen und herkömmlichen Geber hinsichtlich ihrer Effektivität in der Erbringung von öffentlichen Gütern und Dienstleistungen im Wasser- und Abwasserbereich in Indien. Indien bietet sich als Länderkontext für die Untersuchung dieser Forschungsfrage insbesondere an, da es sich als Schwellenland mit gegenwärtig immer noch sehr hoher Armut und schlechter Wasserversorgung in vorwiegend ländlichen Gebieten einer Vielzahl von Akteuren und Ansätzen zur Lösung dieser Herausforderungen gegenüber sieht. Im theoretischen Rahmen der Dissertation werden aus dem Zusammenspiel von Akteurstypen und hierarchischer und nicht-hierarchischer Steuerung, vier Governance-Typen entwickelt. Diese vier Steuerungsmodi unterscheiden sich hinsichtlich der Entscheidungsfindung, Rechenschaftslegung und Delegierung von Aufgaben bzw. Richtung des Informationsflusses. Diese Governance-Typen werden in der empirischen Untersuchung um mögliche alternative Erklärungen ergänzt wie Ressourcenverfügbarkeit, Bedeutung von vorhergehenden Projekten in einem Projektkontext, lokale Legitimität als Türöffner und Machtasymmetrien im Projektkontext. Die empirische Analyse von sieben Fällen macht deutlich, dass die Akteursbeziehung eine notwendige Bedingung für erfolgreiche und eigenständige Projektumsetzung in der EZ ist. Darüber hinaus belegen die Ergebnisse, dass es einen systematischen Unterschied zwischen herkömmlichen und neuen Gebern gibt. Die Projekte der herkömmlichen Geber waren durchweg erfolgreicher und wiesen alle eine Akteursinteraktion auf, die die Verantwortung in die Hände des EZ-Empfängers legte und darüber hinaus von Vertrauen und Reputation einer langjährigen Zusammenarbeit profitierten. Der Erfolg der herkömmlichen Geber basierte vorwiegend auf der Rückendeckung der lokalen Umsetzung durch die nationale Ebene. Neben charismatischen Führungsfiguren stellten sich auch übernommene Strukturen und Akteure von Vorgängerprojekten als positive Einflussfaktoren für eine erfolgreiche Projektumsetzung heraus. Aus den Erfolgen und Misserfolgen der sieben hier untersuchten Fälle lassen sich zentrale Handlungsempfehlungen für die unterschiedlichen Akteure der EZ-Umsetzung ableiten. So könnten neue Geber eine Ergänzungsfunktion zu herkömmlichen Gebern erfüllen, indem sie durch Pilotstudien innovative Projektansätze entwickeln und diese dann als Ergänzung zu den Projekten herkömmlicher Geber vor Ort umsetzen. Herkömmliche Geber müssten im Gegenzug in ihren Programmen Raum für die Integration der Ansätze von neuen Gebern schaffen, um so eine Geberharmonisierung zu fördern. Auf staatlicher und bundesstaatlicher Nehmerseite gilt es ebenfalls, Nischen für Aktivitäten zu identifizieren und zu besetzen und die Harmonisierung unter den Gebern zu fördern. Die empirischen Ergebnisse belegen die Notwendigkeit einer Harmonisierungsstrategie von unterschiedlichen Gebertypen, um vor Ort Duplikation, Experimente und Misserfolge von EZ-Programmen zu verhindern. Eine Transformation zu einer erfolgreichen und nachhaltigen EZ kann nur durch mehr Koordinationsprozesse und nationale Eigenverantwortung erreicht werden. KW - governance KW - aid effectiveness KW - water development aid KW - development aid India KW - donor harmonization KW - actor interplay KW - new donors KW - conventional donors KW - donor reputation KW - governance KW - Wirksamkeit der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit KW - Wasserentwicklungszusammenarbeit KW - Entwicklungszusammenarbeit mit Indien KW - Geberharmonisierung KW - Akteursinteraktion KW - neue Geber KW - herkömmliche Geber KW - Reputation der Geber Y1 - 2016 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-401337 ER - TY - GEN A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Kunz, Michael A1 - Mühr, Bernhard A1 - Müller, Meike A1 - Otto, Antje A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Schröter, Kai T1 - Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013 N2 - Widespread flooding in June 2013 caused damage costs of €6 to 8 billion in Germany, and awoke many memories of the floods in August 2002, which resulted in total damage of €11.6 billion and hence was the most expensive natural hazard event in Germany up to now. The event of 2002 does, however, also mark a reorientation toward an integrated flood risk management system in Germany. Therefore, the flood of 2013 offered the opportunity to review how the measures that politics, administration, and civil society have implemented since 2002 helped to cope with the flood and what still needs to be done to achieve effective and more integrated flood risk management. The review highlights considerable improvements on many levels, in particular (1) an increased consideration of flood hazards in spatial planning and urban development, (2) comprehensive property-level mitigation and preparedness measures, (3) more effective flood warnings and improved coordination of disaster response, and (4) a more targeted maintenance of flood defense systems. In 2013, this led to more effective flood management and to a reduction of damage. Nevertheless, important aspects remain unclear and need to be clarified. This particularly holds for balanced and coordinated strategies for reducing and overcoming the impacts of flooding in large catchments, cross-border and interdisciplinary cooperation, the role of the general public in the different phases of flood risk management, as well as a transparent risk transfer system. Recurring flood events reveal that flood risk management is a continuous task. Hence, risk drivers, such as climate change, land-use changes, economic developments, or demographic change and the resultant risks must be investigated at regular intervals, and risk reduction strategies and processes must be reassessed as well as adapted and implemented in a dialogue with all stakeholders. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe - 294 KW - August 2002 flood KW - Central Europe KW - Floods Directive KW - June 2013 flood KW - governance KW - risk management cycle Y1 - 2016 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-100600 SN - 1866-8372 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Kunz, Michael A1 - Mühr, Bernhard A1 - Müller, Meike A1 - Otto, Antje A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Schröter, Kai T1 - Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013 JF - Ecology and society : E&S ; a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability N2 - Widespread flooding in June 2013 caused damage costs of €6 to 8 billion in Germany, and awoke many memories of the floods in August 2002, which resulted in total damage of €11.6 billion and hence was the most expensive natural hazard event in Germany up to now. The event of 2002 does, however, also mark a reorientation toward an integrated flood risk management system in Germany. Therefore, the flood of 2013 offered the opportunity to review how the measures that politics, administration, and civil society have implemented since 2002 helped to cope with the flood and what still needs to be done to achieve effective and more integrated flood risk management. The review highlights considerable improvements on many levels, in particular (1) an increased consideration of flood hazards in spatial planning and urban development, (2) comprehensive property-level mitigation and preparedness measures, (3) more effective flood warnings and improved coordination of disaster response, and (4) a more targeted maintenance of flood defense systems. In 2013, this led to more effective flood management and to a reduction of damage. Nevertheless, important aspects remain unclear and need to be clarified. This particularly holds for balanced and coordinated strategies for reducing and overcoming the impacts of flooding in large catchments, cross-border and interdisciplinary cooperation, the role of the general public in the different phases of flood risk management, as well as a transparent risk transfer system. Recurring flood events reveal that flood risk management is a continuous task. Hence, risk drivers, such as climate change, land-use changes, economic developments, or demographic change and the resultant risks must be investigated at regular intervals, and risk reduction strategies and processes must be reassessed as well as adapted and implemented in a dialogue with all stakeholders. KW - August 2002 flood KW - Central Europe KW - Floods Directive KW - governance KW - June 2013 flood KW - risk management cycle Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08547-210251 SN - 1708-3087 SN - 1195-5449 VL - 21 IS - 2 PB - Resilience Alliance CY - Wolfville, NS ER -