4.1 European policies influencing the management of floods and floodplains

please provide general comments on section 4.1 here

An efficient and effective flood risk management planning cannot be based on the floods directive only. In terms of process, many links are made with the Water Framework directive (WFD), but more important are the content links for a sustainable flood risk management: first of all with the WFD and wider water legislation but also with the nature legislation. In addition, many thematic policies have an impact and are impacted by flood risk management. These influences differ from place to place and can change over time. As agricultural policies are important to look at almost all over Europe, they are discussed separately.

4.1.1        Floods Directive

After indicating the units of management – which are, except for Italy and Ireland the same as the river basin districts under the WFD – and the competent authorities responsible for the implementation of the FD, the first analysis was done by EU Member States in the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment The first reporting (PFRA), which were due in December 2011.

A large majority (roughly two-third) of reported events is related to fluvial flooding, followed by surface water flooding from heavy rainfall and coastal water floods. Over 40% of records are from floods for flood events from the year 2000 onwards (EC 2015a). The PFRA not only made information available about the physical flood characteristics of significant past floods like the source, mechanism and characteristics, but also about the consequences. When looking at the impacts, it becomes clear that the economic damage is reported less frequently as ‘not applicable’ than the Environmental impact. It is unclear if this is because environmental damage occurs less frequently or explained by an inherent bias in the data as economic impact were traditionally recorded in more detail (Kjeldsen, et al., 2013).

Where the PFRA made more information on the impacts of flooding available in a structured way (although often not quantified or in monetary  terms), it is at the same time obvious that the PFRA reporting in itself is insufficient to act as the single database on floods and flood impacts in Europe (ETC/ICM 2015). As significant differences are found in the way countries reported past flood events. The next reporting cycle, with a PFRA due by the end of 2018, could benefit from additional guidance in order to obtain more homogeneous information across member states (Kjeldsen, et al., 2013). Examples are the non-uniformity in the criteria to declare flood events beings ‘significant’, or the term ‘not applicable’ which is sometimes used as 'was checked and was not observed' and in other cases in the sense of 'we do not know because there are no data available'.

Using the information about past floods reported by member states and combining that information with available data from global datasets on floods and additions by national authorities on a voluntary basis, provides already a more complete overview of European floods. Between 1980 and 2010, 3 552 distinct flood phenomena (floods) were evidenced in 37 European countries. As shown in Figure 4.3, the highest number of floods is reported for the year 2010 (321 floods), when 27 countries were affected. This number is associated with the “Central European floods” which occurred across several central European countries during May and June 2010. In Poland, more than 20 people lost their lives, approx. 3 400 km² of land have been inundated by the floods and the total damage cost by floods have been assessed to more than 2 billion Euro. Germany, Slovakia, Hungary, Republic of Serbia, Bulgaria, France and other countries were affected as well (ETC/ICM 2015). The apparent increase of the number of reported floods has not been crosschecked with the natural flooding of the rivers. Therefore, based on Figure 4.3 no one can make any conclusion about trends or patterns of flooding in Europe as, besides the length of time series, reporting bias (see also (EEA 2012a) (*))the reporting across Europe is not homogeneous.

(*) to be updated for final version

Figure 4.3       Flood phenomena between 1980 and 2010.

Map 4.1 shows the number of flood phenomena since 1980 which are weighted in respect to country areas.

Map 4.1          Flood phenomena per country (since 1980)

Although the structured way of reporting these impacts in categories is relatively rough it contains information on human health (fatalities) and economic impacts as well as impacts on the environment and cultural heritage that can be used in European overviews. Making this information available to the public is essential in raising awareness of flood risks ([1]).

After the delineation of Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk (APSFR) (EU 2007, Art. 5), EU Member States had to develop on Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs), which were due for the end of 2013. While the in-depth review is ongoing in 2015, a partial overview (including the FHRMs of 32 units of management (UoMs)) shows that international coordination is lagging behind. From a subset of 18 UoMs, all being part of an international River Basin District (RBD), 11 of them presented flood hazard and flood risk maps for the area that is shared. In addition, only in five of them it is clear that co-ordination in the development of the maps has been achieved (WRc 2015).

The Member States’ reporting of the FHRMs suggests almost 4500 industrial installation are potentially affected by pluvial floods. In roughly half of the EU Member States fluvial flooding with a probability of 1% per year can be overlaid with protected areas (Kavvadas, 2015) as defined in the directives on drinking water (EU 1998), birds (EU 2010) and habitats (EU 1992), urban wastewater treatment (EU 1991), and the WFD (EU 2000).

The development of a Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP). FRMPs are to be adopted and available in December 2015 and will be reported to the European Commission by March 2016. However, as FRMPs should be developed with the active involvement of interested parties (EU 2007, Art. 10) draft FRMPs were available when this report was produced in 2015.

While keeping in mind only the draft FRMPs were available, a screening of them reveals that over 90% of the plans included objectives for flood risk management and objectives to reduce flood risks (WRc 2015). However, these objectives are only specific and measurable in 25% of the plans. Only in a very small minority of the plans, objectives for the use of preventive and protective measures were listed while, in contrast, almost 80% of the plans included objectives on preparedness measures. Still lacking in many cases is the underpinning of how the individual measures contribute to the overall objectives set to reduce flood risk and towards more general water policy (environmental) objectives (WRc 2015). Nevertheless, the proposed measures themselves are rather evenly distributed over the four types ([2]). As the FD has a framework approach, its success is dependent on the ambition of the Member States for its implementation and measuring the progress (EC 2015b). The development of a European database on flood impacts (see chapter 2) and initiatives like disaster loss data recording guidelines (De Groeve, et al., 2013, 2014) are important for the measurement of success.

[2] Measures are divided in four categories: Prevention, Protection, Preparation and Recovery/Review (EC 2013a)

Co-ordination between Member States on objectives and measures has been achieved in half of the RBDs/UoM that are part of international RBDs/UoM, so – as for the FHRMs - there seems to be ample room for further improvements. The same is true for climate change and socio-economic changes (and resulting pressures e.g. changing land use) and especially for the quantification of these future impacts as they are key elements of flood risk management (EC 2015b).

With the first cycle of implementation for the FD almost ending with the availability of the FRMPs, a preliminary evaluation of where the implementation of this directive leads us to can be made. In general it is clear that the improved estimations (and in a way prioritization within Member States) of areas with potential significant floods and the values at risk became publicly available. Although difficult to quantify, it is expected that this lead to an increased flood risk awareness among the general public.

Given the importance of synergies with the WFD and other policies (see subsection 4.1.2) various types of measures are explored, and there’s an increased awareness for the potential programmes of measures where prevention, protection, preparedness, and recovery and review measures are combined. Steps towards the integration of flood risk management with nature, environment and water quality objectives by multiple use of the same datasets have been made but can be further improved.

All Member States are – for the first time - concurrently taking action, under the same framework, to prevent or reduce social, economic and environmental damage from flood risk. The detailed information form the FHRMs should direct decision makers and authorities towards (programmes of) measures aimed at reducing flood risks in an effective and sustainable way for the aquatic environment and societies (EC 2015b).

4.1.2        Interlinkages between the Floods Directive, the Water Framework Directive and the Birds and Habitat Directives

The Floods Directive (FD) is linked to the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in all stages of the planning cycle: from problem identification to implementation and monitoring. The main benefits of this mutual coordination are the improved efficiency when communicating with the public, better information exchange between those working on floods and water (quality) management, and achieving common synergies in the environmental objectives of FD and WFD (EC 2014d).

These commonalities are not an end point, as there’s room for further improvements (EC 2012c). Part of the current implementation gap in the WFD can be attributed to challenges that are linked to flood risk management. First, the cost-effectiveness of the Programmes of Measures (PoMs) is not always clear and it can be assumed that it is difficult to attract funding for large-scale restoration projects. Second, there is a lack of integration and coherence with other policy domains, including the common agricultural policy and regional and urban policies. And third, it is necessary to improve governance, amongst others by addressing ineffective water planning and management in order to tackle coordination problems (EC 2012a).

The Floods Directive is related to EU nature legislation by the requirement to include protected areas in the flood risk maps (EU 2007, Art. 6 §5(c)) and by a specific mentioning of the need to take into account nature conservation in the flood risk management plans (EU 2007, Art. 7 §3). The Floods Directive also recognises the opportunities created by giving rivers more space by the maintenance or restoration of floodplains in flood risk management.

Through the links to the WFD, all activities under the FD must be in line with the requirements of the BHDs as well, e.g. when flood protection measures potentially affect one or more Natura 2000 sites (EU 1992, Art. 6). Neither the WFD nor the FD change any of the requirements for the BHDs, but they provide a joint framework for the implementation of measures in water-dependent Natura 2000 sites (EC 2011c). Therefore, it is recommended that water bodies, as the basic unit for the WFD, are delineated as far as possible taking into account the protected areas from the BHDs, because these protected areas introduce additional objectives (EC 2003). The restoration of healthy ecosystems, e.g. through Natura2000 networks, can be a very effective way of preventing and mitigating floods, and will in addition be an important tool in adapting to climate change. However, conflicts between the directives can occur as well, e.g. when increasing the dynamics in floodplains (as a measure to support flood risk management). This may have negative consequences for existing environmental values protected under the BHDs. This can arise when human intervention has modified a water body and, as a result of the modification, some valuable protected habitats and/or species have developed in the modified environment. The observed conflicts can be solved by early cooperation, negotiation and well informed choices using the flexibilities that the Directives provide (Summary Report 2015).

In the 2014 workshop on coordinated implementation of nature, biodiversity, marine and water (NBMW) policies (Workshop preparatory committee 2014) it was stressed once more that successes in water, nature (or marine) policies invariably depend on the progress in all other areas. A coordinated implementation is rewarding as the joint implementation of water and nature policies achieves a higher quality of our environment and promote better regulation at European and national level, including avoiding burdensome duplication of work (Workshop preparatory committee 2014). There are no objective obstacles preventing from working together efficiently and exploit synergies of NBMW policies, as there is no essential contradiction in objectives between them. Nevertheless, a full harmonisation is not possible (Summary Report 2015).

Notwithstanding the different contexts in which the BHDs, WFD and FD are developed, and the different objectives they aim to achieve, creating different instruments, there are plenty good examples on a more coordinated approach of the policy processes, e.g. on monitoring and reporting and on the development of programmes of measures and public consultation (Workshop preparatory committee 2014). The comparison of some management aspects, indicating similarities and differences between the FD, WFD and BHDs, can be found in Table 4.1. Examples of potential synergies and conflicts at different scales, related to the hydrology and physical processes can be found in Table 4.2. The importance of potential conflicts became clear once more when assessing the state of Europe’s nature: besides agriculture the modification of natural conditions of water bodies is seen as a major pressure and also pollution remains an issue (EEA 2015d). The proportion assessments which are unfavourable and deteriorating is particularly high for species and habitats associated with wetlands, alluvial grassland, riparian forests and freshwater (EEA 2015d).

There was a large consensus that there is the need to further define a common agenda, building further on the basis of the NBMW workshop (Summary Report 2015). It will be followed by an event under the Luxembourg Presidency in November 2015 (*).

(*) in final version to replace by ‘past time’ and some key messages.

4.1.3        Potential conflicts with thematic policies

Without diluting the importance of reaching the good status for all water bodies in Europe and a sustainable flood risk management, it is clear that many other (environmental) objectives of the EU are using the same (scarce) resources: water and the adjacent land areas: to secure food production, fertile arable land is needed, to reduce CO₂ emissions renewable energy needs increased and less fuel used per ton and km of goods transported.

The renewable energy directive (EU 2009), which includes hydropower, and the white paper on transport (EC 2011e), stimulating the integration of inland waterways into the transport system in their support for multimodal transport, are two examples of thematic policies aiming to improve Europe’s environmental quality, hence potentially conflicting with the aims of the WFD, the FD and the BHDs. A successful implementation of all these agendas is only possible when there’s a sufficient level of coordination and cooperation. Amongst the tools available to encourage a more integrated approach – linking socio-economic issues with environmental aspects - are the strategic environmental assessment directive (EU 2001) and the environmental impact assessments directive (EU 2012b, 2014a).

Agriculture

Under the rural development policy of the EU (Pillar 2 of the Common Agircultural Policy, CAP), are 2 development priorities defined that are of direct relevance for water quantity and flood risk management (EU 2013b):

• restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems - improving water management, including fertiliser and pesticide management (priority 4b); and

• resource efficiency and shift towards a low carbon and climate resilient economy - increasing efficiency in water use by agriculture (priority 5a).

Under these priorities measures affecting the occurrence, timing or extend of flooding can be included and this both in the floodplain as well as in the wider catchment.

The most common example in the floodplain is the promotion of land use changes which reduce the hydraulic resistance. In the catchment this can be done by promoting land use modifications which increase infiltration and delay run-off (e.g. by adapted cropping patterns or reforestation). Alternatives are the provision of additional or reinforced ecosystem services (e.g. by allocating parcels for water storage during floods) or by taking water conservation measures.

The effects of measures in the floodplains are more likely to be directly visible. The effect of measures taken in the catchment will to a large degree depend on the spatial scale of measures compared to the catchment area. Furthermore such measures can have a long lead time before their effects can be demonstrated in hydrological measurements.

The Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) ([3]) 2014-2020 are very relevant for water management, as they define largely how agriculture pressures will be addressed in the WFD RBMPs to be available by the end of 2015. In addition, the RDPs represent 20% of the CAP budget. However, integration of the two fields remains difficult in practice.

The draft RDPs were screened with regard to their efforts to contribute to achieve the ecological functioning of water bodies and taking into account the flood protection requirements. In addition it was checked how they align with the WFD implementation and contribute to the restoration of water bodies (Fresh Thoughts Consulting 2014). In many of the RDPs there’s an emphasis on hard defences like dikes and reservoirs, rather than giving priority to natural water retention measures. Explicit references to maintain and not degrade are scarce and so are the links to the floods directive (Fresh Thoughts Consulting 2014). Although there is improvement in the adopted RDPs compared to the draft versions it – in general – remains a missed opportunity to strengthen the links between CAP and water policies.

[3] 56 out of 118 Rural Development Programmes are adopted, covering 63,2% of the EU rural Development Funds (Status as of 3/07/2015), http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-development-2014-2020/country-files/common/overview-map-adopted-rdp_en.pdf  (status to be updated in final version of report)

Hydropower

An overview of the impacts of hydropower generation on water management can be found in “Towards efficient use of water resources in Europe” (EEA 2012b). The impacts are plentiful and the altered flow regimes and water-level fluctuations as well as the sediment transport an retention affect floodplains (EEA, 2012b). The Renewable Energy Directive (EU 2009) does not set legally binding national targets for hydropower specifically but does so for electricity and transport for renewable sources in general. Where this directive makes a general reference to ecosystem services and the Ramsar Convention (Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2014) in the preambles, there is no specific reference to the Water Framework Directive or any other specific European water or nature legislation.

Where most RBMPs in the first cycle of implementation of the WFD (by 22/12/2009) do not make a reference to the exemptions for the environmental objectives (EU 2000, Art. 4§7) there seems to be a lack of integration between water and energy policies (EC 2012c). Nevertheless, there are several examples on sustainable hydropower development, like in Austria (Koller-Kreimel, 2015) where a catalogue for water protection and use sets national criteria for new hydropower projects (BMLFUW 2012) and was developed in cooperation with 9 regional governments and stakeholders. Also for the Danube River Basin, guiding principles are adopted (ICPDR 2013), with attention for both existing and newly developed power plants. But up till today both water sector and energy sector are at risk to fail achieving the objectives and legal compliance without a cross-sectoral dialogue (Mair, 2015).

Inland navigation

Natural water retention measures and giving room to rivers and other flood risk management measures working with natural processes may influence flow patterns (and erosion-sedimentation processes) during normal conditions and these projects often aim at increasing the biodiversity. This may have an impact on inland water transport (IWT) (PIANC 2009). Measures taken for the benefit of navigation can be divided into (PIANC 2009):

• maintenance measures, like extractive dredging, sediment feeding and management or vegetation maintenance;

• construction measures, like groynes, dikes and revetments, sills and armoured layers, rock blasting, locks and barrages or flow regulation; and

• operational measures, like terminal and port facilities, or river information services.

Where the maintenance and operational measures in general affect the physical characteristics of the flood wave only to a limited extent, it is also true that maintenance measures like extractive dredging, sediment management or vegetation management can have significant effects on the ecosystem services in the riverbed and floodplain. This is even more true for construction measures for navigation and in addition they may influence probability, magnitude and duration of flooding. Construction of levees and flow diversions have the largest impacts on ecosystem services, but at the other hand can be reversed easier (e.g. by dike-openings) than modifications of the river itself (PIANC 2009).

However, it needs to be mentioned that of the many grey river engineering measures reducing the natural storage of floodwaters, only some of the developments can be attributed to navigation, mainly:

• river regulation causing an increased flood wave propagation which is leading to increased flooding downstream; and

• excessive levee construction or channelling that accelerates flood peaks and wave heights (PIANC 2009)

While developed originally within different communities, an ecosystem based flood risk management and navigation needs are not incompatible. A joint statement for the river Danube (ICPDR 2007) was made based on integrated planning, defining goals and ensuring comparability of alternatives, applying EIAs and with respect for and contributing to the RBMPs (Mair, 2015) and further specified in a manual (ICPDR 2010) and with a yearly follow-up and exchange of good practices. To maximise synergies between transport needs, WFD, FD and BHDs, also in terms of (co-)funding, an integrated planning approach is necessary, e.g. by integrating river restoration initiatives into IWT sector plans (EC 2012d).

4.1.4        Environmental Assessments

The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (SEA) (EU 2001) aims to encourage a more integrated and efficient approach to territorial planning where environment, including biodiversity considerations, are taken into account much earlier on in the planning process and at a much more strategic level. This should lead to fewer conflicts further down the line at the level of individual projects.

An SEA is mandatory for a variety of plans and programmes dealing with land use changes including for agriculture or forestry, energy, or water management. An SEA should also be carried out on any plan or programme, which, in view of the likely significant effect on sites, have been determined to require an assessment pursuant to the Habitats Directive (EU 1992, Art. 6 §3).

An SEA sets the framework for future development consent of projects listed in the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA) (EU 2012b, 2014a). While the SEA process operates at the level of plans and programmes, the EIA Directive operates at the level of individual public and private projects. Thus, development consent for projects ([4]) which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of its likely environmental effects has been carried out.

[4] The jurisprudence of the Court in relation to the concept ‘project’ is summarized in (EC 2015d)

Flood relief works in general are not amongst the projects for which an EIA is mandatory. They do however require a screening by member states, in order to decide about the necessity of an EIA. For dams and reservoirs, which may play a role in flood control, an EIA is mandatory. Also for many types of projects that may cause negative environmental impacts as a consequence of floods, such as the construction of oil refineries, chemical installations, power plants and quarries, an EIA is mandatory.

Flood risk reduction measures to be implemented as part of the currently devised FRMPs are thus likely to require a screening and potentially an SEA or EIA, the results of which are to be included in the FRMP. In such cases, the two may profit from each other's databases and public consultation processes. The drafting process of an SEA or EIA may raise awareness of potential adverse environmental impacts of proposed FRMP measures and foster a creative process to devise better-balanced measures.