7.2.5 Mitigation Incentives
It is official policy that homeowners and businesses are encouraged to take flood mitigation steps but
there are at present, other than normal planning rules and building regulations, no additional incentives
included in the WTS for people to engage in their own flood resistance or resilience measures. The
absence of mitigation incentives and the apparent lack of certainty and clarity are seen by critics as
weaknesses in the WTS when compared to compensation systems based on private arrangements
(Botzen, 2012).
Under current arrangements, the Dutch government is limited to enforcing planning laws to control
where development occurs. It also can use building regulations to promote flood protection and
resilience. This, however, is an effective tool only for new buildings, which represent only a small
proportion of Dutch property each year. In the absence of market price signals that a private flood
insurance could introduce, this type of planning might be considered a form of micro-management or
even social engineering. Some would question whether this oversteps the role of government in a
modern liberal democracy. In the Netherlands, for historical reasons, there is a broad acceptance of a
strong role for national and local government. If the state determines that houses have to be
demolished because they are considered at too high a flood risk, then the state has a right to move the
occupants (Metz, 2012). While such decisions are frequently contested they normally go-ahead after a
period of negotiation.
Bạn đang xem 7. - LET THE MARKETS IN! A QUESTION OF PRIVATE FLOOD INSURANCE IN THE NETHERLANDS?
