2. Introduction

Please provide general comments on chapter 2. intorduction here

In 2012, the European Commission came up with “A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources” (EC 2012c) to tackle the obstacles which hamper action to further improve the status of EU waters. EEA’s state of water reports ([1]) served as an important contribution to underpin the statements that water quality and water quantity need concerted action. There are numerous challenges to attaining the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (EU 2000 (Art. 4)) and floods, inundations, modifications of the water flow and morphological changes are amongst the multitude of pressures affecting Europe’s water bodies.

Where the report “Water resources in Europe in the context of vulnerability” (EEA 2012c) focussed on droughts, water scarcity and floods, this report focusses on flooding, the role of floodplains and the impact of hydromorphological alterations on the ecosystem services floodplains provide. While the aim is to support the implementation of the European Floods Directive (EU 2007) it at the same time looks at EU water and nature policies as well as thematic policies affecting floodplains to identify synergies and approaches to capitalize on them.

In 2016-2018, the EEA will prepare an update on the state of EU waters in assessments based on the information that becomes available from the second generation of River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). Included in the update will be flood impacts and flood risk management. The most prominent information on flood impacts and flood risk management at EU level is based on the reporting under the Floods Directive: information on past and future floods, the Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) and the draft Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs). This report is a conceptual assessment on how this information can be used to get a more comprehensive assessment on the quantitative and qualitative status of Europe’s water resources and the ecosystem services they provide. Without suggesting to be complete and aware of changes still being implemented in the FRMPs, the information allows us to make suggestions for an improved second cycle of implementation of the Floods Directive. It also enables us to develop a better understanding of freshwater ecosystem services, and of the environmental impact of flooding and flood protection measures.

Secondly, we want to explore the synergies between the Floods Directive and other water and nature legislation. In particular the WFD (EU 2000) and the Birds and Habitats Directives (EU 1992, 2010) are of interest, in the framework of streamlining environmental requirements as expressed in the Biodiversity 2020 Strategy (EC 2011a) and the potential revision of the WFD after 2018.

The third objective of this report is to identify and share good examples to improve the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) in the next cycle of implementation of the Floods Directive in 2018. The second cycle will be started soon after the reporting of the Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs), which will complete the first cycle of implementation in March 2016. While many details about floods and their impacts are known on local level, it remains difficult to get a detailed European overview. The Floods Directive collects information on significant past floods as part of the PFRA (EU 2007, Art. 4). To be of most value for European wide assessments, the structured information provided needs to be detailed enough to create added value beyond some descriptive terms like ‘extreme event’ or ‘large impact’ but at the same time be general enough to be comparable. Where this is done to a certain extent in the PFRA in 2011, analysis of the information (e.g. (Kjeldsen, et al., 2013)) shows that more can be done in this regard.

For whom this report is made

The main audience in mind when writing this report are flood risk managers involved in the FRMPs and the programmes of measures. Under budget restrictions, and with water and land being scarce goods, searching for synergies with the other water and nature protection communities and creating integrated visions and measures is an (even the) effective and efficient way forward. In isolation it may seem as if your actions go faster (at least in the beginning), by working together you get much further.

It is also meant as an introduction to water managers involved in the RBMPs and people involved in nature conservation and restoration to better understand how their actions can contribute to a sustainable flood risk management. Given the importance of land use changes and developments like urbanisation as important pressures, spatial planners and developers will find information on synergies and sustainable development of floodplains. In general, this report gives examples for all those interested in how water management (and more specific flood risk management) based on an ecosystem services approach is shaped and how flood risk management is linked to a wide variety of thematic polices influencing and influenced by flood risk management.