FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

AND MITIGATION IN FRANCE

By Vincent R. Parisi, International Committee Chair,
Association of State Floodplain Managers
And FEMA Region V

Source: Seine-Normandie Water Agency Communications and International Services, 1997

Used By Permission
BACKGROUND

The French Association for the Prevention of Natural Disasters (AFPCN) in collaboration
with the International Council For Science (ICSU) organized a conference entitled,
“Disaster Mitigation in Urbanized Areas,” which took place on March 7-8, 2002 in Paris,
France. The objective of the AFPCN is to provide technical assistance on natural disaster
reduction to citizens, government officials, scientists, associations, the media, business,
and academia. ICSU is a non-governmental organization, founded in 1931 to bring
together natural scientists in international scientific endeavors. It comprises 98 multi-
disciplinary national scientific members and 26 international, single-discipline scientific
unions to provide a wide spectrum of scientific expertise enabling members to address
major international, interdisciplinary issues. Philippe Boullé, former Director of the
United Nation’s International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) and
Administrator of AFPCN, organized the French presentations and Dr. Robert Hamilton,
Chair of the ICSU Committee on Natural Disaster Reduction organized the American
presentations. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss techniques and strategies for
hazard mitigation in urban areas. Mitigating hazards for new construction is well known
and has been practiced for years. It is considerably more difficult to protect existing
buildings in high-risk areas. Hazard mitigation strategies may vary from country to
country because of differing national priorities and local cultures. Analyzing these
different approaches and experiences is essential to the development of realistic
solutions. Any floodproofing strategy that deals with retrofitting existing residential and
commercial structures must be open to public debate. Therefore, this conference sought
to discuss what actions should be taken to efficiently protect the population at risk and
reduce damages, who takes the initiative, and what financial means are used to fund these
strategies. Over a 100 people were in attendance, including representatives from the
federal, regional, and local government, elected officials, associations, academia, non-
profits, and concerned citizens.

The day before the conference, the

U.S. delegation was received by Yves
Quere, Foreign Secretary of the
French Academy of Sciences. Mr.
Quere explained how France was
involved in the International Decade
for Natural Disaster Reduction and
expressed the desire to capitalize on
the success of this initiative. He
explained that the AFPCN was
formed to continue the French effort
in this area. The hope is to ultimately
make the Academy more interested in
natural disasters and risk reduction.

We also had a private meeting at the

French Senate, the Palais du
Photo 1: Meeting at French Academy of Sciences.
Pictured in photo from left to right: Yves
Quere, Walt Hayes, Vincent Parisi,
Robert Hamilton and Philippe Boullé
2
Luxembourg, with some French Senators,
Jean-Francois Picheral and Yves Dauge.
Senator Dauge, the President of AFPCN, is
also Mayor of the French city of Chinon in
the Loire Valley and is the author of the
Report to Parliament on Floods (2001).
After our meeting, the Senators decided to
form a Senate Committee on Flood
Mitigation.

FRENCH WATER MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM

The French approach is based on three

major principles: Legislate to
decentralize, consider water as a Photo 2: Meeting at French Senate. Pictured in
photo from left to right: Philippe Boullé,
commodity, and establish a “polluter Robert Hamilton, Senators Dauge and
pays” system. France is divided into six Picheral.
major watersheds. Each watershed has a
watershed agency often referred to as a “water parliament” because it brings together all
stakeholders: elected officials, consumers, and representatives of federal, regional, and
local governments. The watershed agency bills consumers on the basis of water
consumption and level of pollution generated. The income generated is redistributed to
improve water quality and quantity. Many countries have copied the French system of
watershed agencies.

FRENCH NATURAL DISASTER INSURANCE

After the violent flooding of 1981 in the Saône and Rhone Valleys as well as
in the southwest portion of France, the Parliament passed a law on July 13, 1982
that established this country’s natural disaster compensation system. This new law had
two main objectives: the expeditious compensation of losses suffered by victims and the
prevention/reduction of future damage. This law instituted a legal system for natural
disaster compensation that is based on the principle that the federal government is
responsible to protect the welfare of its citizens. Everyone who has auto, home and
business insurance that covers damages, such as fire, water damages or loss by theft, is
automatically covered for damages to their property caused by flooding, landslide,
drought, avalanche, earthquakes, etc. However, this increased coverage is available only
if the disaster is declared by interministerial decree. The premium rate for natural
disaster coverage is fixed by law and the same for all policyholders. The premium was
originally 9% of the premiums for coverage on fire, explosion, air travel, and multi-risk
dwelling for business when the law was first passed. Since September 1, 1999, the
natural disaster policy premium (on property other than motor vehicles) is 12%. For car
insurance, it is fixed at 6% of fire and theft premiums. The policy covers the cost of
direct material damage suffered by the property up to the value stated in the policy.
Natural disaster coverage is also extended to all “business interruption” policies.

3
Deductibles are not index-linked and are specifically stated in the law. The deductible
for private property, motor vehicles and other objects not intended for commercial use is
$335 while the deductible for commercial property is 10% of the direct property damage
subject to a minimum of $1000. A sliding scale has been introduced to vary these
deductibles to encourage loss prevention measures. This scale applies to those districts
that do not yet have a multi-hazard mitigation plan. Specifically, when a declared
disaster occurs, the deductible is increased depending on how many other declarations
have been granted for the same peril. One or two disaster declaration(s) results in normal
application of deductible; three declarations results in the tripling of deductible and four
or more declarations results in the quadrupling of deductible. The sliding scale will be
discontinued as soon as the hazard mitigation plan is adopted.

As a counterpart of the indemnification system, the 1982 law encourages the

development of local hazard mitigation plans. The objective of these plans is to map risk
zones and prescribe measures of
HIGH RISK prevention. Three categories of
zones had been determined: a
yellow zone (minimal risk), a
orange zone (moderate risk -
MODERATE RISK
requiring an hazard mitigation
plan) and a red zone (high risk -
prohibiting all construction).
However, this law does not require
the demolition of a building
located in a red zone (except in
LOW RISK
case of imminent risk) if it had
Photo 3: Floodplain map for the Village of Mende been constructed before the
in south central France showing the adoption of the hazard maps. To
different risk zones deal with major natural risks
(avalanches, landslides, etc.) that
threaten human lives, the 1982 law foresaw a new application of eminent domain to
protect public safety. Property owners subject to eminent domain are then indemnified
by a fund provided by appropriating 2% of contributions financing the natural disaster
system.

PRESENTATIONS

Senator Yves Dauge, President of AFPCN, opened the meeting and welcomed the
participants. There was simultaneous translation throughout the conference. Dr.
Hamilton then provided a brief overview of the issues and dilemmas in U.S. mitigation
policy. He stated that communities can reduce their risk to natural hazards by avoiding,
reducing, and withstanding the hazard or spreading the losses through insurance. While
the U.S. has made great strides in reducing risk, more Americans are choosing to live
near the coasts, insurance coverage is inadequate, political considerations can override
economic factors in the wake of disasters, and the cost effectiveness of mitigation is
difficult to evaluate. I then gave my presentation entitled, “U.S. Flood Policy After the

4
 Midwest Floods of 1993.” I
provided a brief historical
summary of federal flood policy
and regulations, an overview of
the 1993 floods and
recommendations of the Galloway
Report. I then presented two
flood mitigation case studies in
Darlington, Wisconsin and
Austin, Minnesota, respectively.
The floodproofing of historic
buildings in Darlington by filling
in the basement and elevating the
first floors was particularly
Photo 4 Vincent Parisi speaking about U.S. interesting to the French because
Floodplain Management and ASFPM’s they have many historic structures
No Adverse Impact Strategy at risk that cannot be acquired or
elevated. My second case study
was the report on losses avoided
by acquisition in Austin, Minnesota. While acquisition of buildings was not a viable
option of many at risk structures in France, the idea of quantifying the dollars saved by
mitigation was very appealing. An economist in the audience wanted to receive the
complete report including the methodology for calculating losses avoided. I ended my
presentation by speaking about the Association of State Floodplain Managers (AFSPM)
“No Adverse Impact” strategy,
which was well received especially
the emphasis on local control and
comprehensive planning. The
French then did presentations on
the impact of the devastating 1910
Paris flood and mitigation
strategies for reducing the risks of
future flood events. A French
flood prevention commission has
been established and accomplished
the following: periodic dredging
of the Seine, construction of
upstream detention lakes, and the
development of an elaborate plan
to floodproof the vast subway
system. Ironically, the Seine
River, which runs through Paris,
was high and some roads were
closed at the time of the
conference. The French want Photo 5 & 6: Seine River Bank Full and Road
more information on not only Closure Due To Flooding

5
mitigation projects but on techniques for involving local communities in these projects.
Because local hazard mitigation plans are written and enforced by the federal government
in France, participation and buy-in at the local level is inadequate. They would also like
more information on the mitigation planning process and more examples of the
successful implementation of local mitigation plans. There were also presentation on
risks from landslides and earthquakes.

CONCLUSIONS

The exchange offered the U.S. delegation many insights into the mitigation and
management of natural hazards in France. The French Natural Disaster Insurance
Program is very intriguing. Further study is warranted to see if the U.S. flood insurance
program could be expanded to cover all hazards and how the U.S. would fund such a
program. It was also impressive to see the concept of mitigation firmly embodied in all
aspects of French floodplain management from multi-hazard maps to watershed agencies.
Finally, a reoccurring theme of the conference is the need for scientists to effectively
communicate with decision-makers and present them with useful information on hazard
mitigation by taking advantage of technology to provide real-time data. However, the
U.S. delegation has just begun to understand how France prepares, responds, and
recovers from disasters. The French have expressed interest in attending national
conferences and workshops in the U.S. to obtain additional information on flood hazard
mitigation. We hope that this is the beginning of a long and enriching exchange of
natural hazard management techniques and practices.