Dr. Swenja Surminski:

The retrofitting aspect is important, although there is still a lack of clarity in terms of assessing and evaluating the impact that process can have on the outcome of a flood. In Ireland, there have been discussions on kite-marking certain matters. For example, one installs certain measures and they are then officially approved which gives some assurance that they work. There is also a human dimension. Some of these measures require a person to be present in the facility to operate them and sometimes that is the weak link in making it in time for the flood. There are certain aspects that need to be clarified but, by and large, there is strong evidence that resilient reinstatement or retrofitting is important and cost effective in many cases.

Another point I would highlight touches on the case of Cork, which seems an extreme example.

I know Cork is probably the most exposed city to floods in Ireland. I am surprised, however, that so far the insurance industry has not spelled out its criteria or expectations for what constitutes a flood risk. What usually happens in other areas of insurance is that certain conditions are set down and if one meets them, then one can expect to get insurance. This creates a degree of transparency. A business in a certain trade will know it will have to comply with certain conditions. By doing so, it will get insurance.

This does not seem to be the case with flooding. To me, this could be an avenue to creating a level playing field. It could allow for clarity as to what from an insurance perspective must be expected of a business or a community in terms of flood prevention defences and retrofitting. It would also ensure this is adhered to when it comes to the point of granting insurance cover. I am a bit surprised that this does not seem to be in place in this case.