To understand how Wallonia respon­ded, we draw on the perspectives of two key experts. Sébastien Gailliez, from the Wallonia Public Service (SPW), led emergency works and initial reconstruction efforts. Pierre Archambeau, a hydraulic engineer working at the University of Liège, developed the modelling tools that now guide long-term recovery. 

For Gailliez, the first challenge was simply reaching the affected areas. Roads and bridges had been destroyed, forcing teams to travel by bicycle or helicopter to assess the damage. Clearing debris was delicate and often conducted under police supervision because of the risk that victims remained trapped beneath the wreckage. Riverbeds, especially along the Vesdre, had accumulated vast amounts of sediment, severely restricting flow. Meanwhile, the regional monitoring network was entirely out of service, leaving emergency responders without data as new storms approached. 

The legal framework also presented obstacles. Public authorities could not intervene directly on private riverbanks or walls, even when doing so was crucial for safety. SPW therefore adopted emergency measures that allowed works to proceed immediately, with administrative regularisation following later. Despite the pressure and emotional toll, staff demonstrated exceptional commitment. Departments that did not normally collaborate closely worked side by side to restore safety and collect the data needed for future modelling. Open and transparent communication with municipalities helped maintain trust during the most difficult months. 

While Gailliez focused on disaster relief in the valleys, Archambeau turned to the scientific foundations of reconstruction. A complete hydrological and hydrodynamic model of the Vesdre basin was developed jointly by SPW and the University of Liège. The model is fully non-commercial and jointly owned, ensuring long-term independence. A version adapted for graphics processors enables rapid testing of numerous reconstruction scenarios. 

Municipalities, residents and engineers now use this model in an iterative process that includes consultations, scenario analysis and refinement. Producing high quality topographic data after the floods was demanding, as many areas had been reshaped and required advanced lidar surveys. Another challenge was communicating technical results to community members and policymakers with very different levels of expertise. Achieving a shared understanding of risks and options takes time but is essential for making lasting decisions. 

Today, reconstruction efforts in Wallonia include redesigning bridges with greater hydraulic capacity, improving forecasting systems and updating of legislation allowing intervention on private structures during extreme events. Both experts emphasise the need for strong internal expertise within public administrations to manage future crises effectively. For Gailliez, true success will be demonstrated when the next major flood occurs and the measures taken successfully protect lives. For Archambeau, longterm resilience requires not only technical tools but also strong institutions capable of using them.

The event challenged some of the foundations of long-term planning. Historical flood records had underestimated exposure because extremely large floods from earlier centuries were not included in the data. Floodplains had to be recalculated from scratch before decisions on reconstruction could be made. As Professor Stefan Greiving explains, decisions about “where and how to rebuild” depend on new hazard maps that reflected the true extent of the risk. 

During the early phase, restoring essential infrastructure became the top priority. Transport routes, electricity and water supply systems had to be repaired first to allow assistance to reach the affected communities. This naturally delayed the reconstruction of homes and private buildings, many of which had suffered major structural damage. Insurance systems also influenced how people rebuilt. Many homeowners who had insurance were contractually required to reconstruct their buildings in the same place and in the same form as before. By contrast, the state recovery funds allowed for structural improvements and even relocation, although these funds typically covered only part of the total costs. This created varying incentives for households and businesses, and in some cases limited the possibility for more resilient rebuilding.

Responsibilities for emergency management in Germany are spread across multiple administrative levels, and the coordination between federal, state and municipal authorities proved difficult under such extreme pressure. New planning instruments were introduced after the floods, such as “reconstruction zones,” giving municipalities more flexibility to redesign areas more safely. While these tools came too late for many immediate decisions, they may support future recovery efforts.  

The floods also highlighted how limited relocation options can be in steep valleys like the Ahr, where higher ground is often unsuitable for new development. As a result, many residents had little choice but to rebuild in place and focus on adaptation rather than relocation. At the same time, particularly vulnerable facilities, such as a school for children with disabilities, were successfully relocated to safer ground, illustrating how risk-based prioritisation can protect those most in need.

Germany’s experience demonstrates how deeply recovery depends on accurate risk information, strong governance and incentives that promote safety rather than reinforce past vulnerabilities. As climate extremes become more frequent, these lessons carry important relevance for regions across Europe.

To understand how Limburg has approached recovery, we spoke with Katya Ivanova, who coordinates the ‘Waterveiligheid en Ruimte Limburg’ (WRL) programme, and Wouter Botzen, whose research focuses on the financial impact on households and businesses. WRL is a long-term programme that aims to rethink how Limburg prepares for extreme rainfall. Ivanova highlights the challenge of involving many different actors: 31 municipalities, provincial authorities, the water board, national ministries, civil society organisations and vulnerable facilities such as care institutions. Keeping these actors aligned requires constant engagement, transparency and patience.

Botzen’s research provides a complementary perspective on recovery. His surveys show that compensation processes were often slow and complex, with people needing to navigate several different schemes for insurance and government support. Insurance payments tended to arrive more quickly, while government compensation took longer. Many households and firms faced uncertainty about what they were entitled to, and around 40 percent of total damages remained uncovered, forcing people to absorb significant losses themselves.

Botzen also found that households who received insurance compensation were more likely to implement flood proofing measures afterwards. For businesses, recovery was faster when they had strong local networks, because local customers returned sooner and helped re-establish revenue. These findings show that recovery depends not only on infrastructure and institutional coordination, but also on financial clarity and the strength of social ties within the community. 

The WRL programme brings these strands together. It focuses on physical measures, spatial planning and practical self-reliance. Households and businesses receive concrete tools, such as manuals for temporary barriers and simple guidance on how to respond when water enters a building. This practical support has helped strengthen awareness and preparedness across the region. Scientific analysis and long-term planning remain central. WRL carries out research to determine which measures are most effective and feasible within the legal and regulatory environment. Because new ideas often bring new questions, the programme works as a living lab, continuously adapting and sharing lessons with other regions in the Netherlands and abroad. 

Coordination also extends beyond Limburg. WRL seeks collaboration at national and European levels, especially on standardisation and more efficient procedures for flood risk management. At the same time, policies such as nitrogen regulation can slow decision making, showing the need for integrated and cross sector approaches. 

Together, the perspectives from WRL and from the financial experiences of households and businesses show that recovery in Limburg relies on both strong coordination and clear support systems. Improving collaboration, speeding up compensation and helping residents take practical measures will all strengthen the region’s ability to prepare for future extreme rainfall.