4.2 Flood risk management, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction

please provide general comments on section 4.2 here

Besides the specific links between water and nature policies on the one hand and thematic policies like CAP, energy (hydropower) or transport (IWT) on the other, there are also cross-cutting issues that need special attention as they – by their very nature – have an impact on all activities. To take them into account is a prerequisite for a successful integrated planning between involved different policy domains.

4.2.1        Climate change and adaptation in European Directives

In Europe, policy for adaptation to climate change has been developed at many levels: from local to a European-wide scale. There is limited systematic information on current implementation or effectiveness of adaptation measures or policies. Some adaptation planning has been integrated into coastal and water management, as well as disaster risk management (IPCC 2014, Chapter 23: Europe). A Europe‑wide state of play for adaptation activities on a national scale is presented in (EEA 2014c)

Water Framework Directive and the Water Blueprint

Climate change and adaptation are not mentioned explicitly in the Water Framework Directive (EU 2000). Nevertheless, in the first RBMPs (2009) future climate change scenarios were mentioned in almost 70% of the plans (EC, 2012). The four most often cited climate change threats are: flooding, changes in water demand and availability, threat of drought, and impacts on water quality and biodiversity.

The subject was discussed intensively over the last years as climate change pressures are exacerbated by human and economic activities and climate change poses an additional threat to the flow regime of water ecosystems (EEA, 2012c). The step-wise and cyclical approach of river basin management described in the WFD makes the process well suited to adaptively manage climate change impacts (EC 2009). Climate-related threats and adaptation planning should be incorporated in the river basin management plans from the second planning cycle (for WFD 2009-2015) onwards. As a minimum it should be demonstrated how climate change projections have informed the assessment of pressures and impacts, how the monitoring programmes are configured to detect climate change impacts, and how selected measures are robust to projected climate conditions (EC 2009).

The Water Blueprint Communication (EC 2012c) reviewed the most important water policy processes in the light of resource efficiency, including the water related part of Europe’s climate change vulnerability and adaptation policy (EEA 2012b). In the Blueprint, climate change together with land use and economic activities are depicted as the main causes having a negative impact on Europe’s water status. Adapting to climate change and building resilience to disasters are presented as key activities for a sustainable water management and good qualitative and quantitative status for water bodies in Europe and worldwide. The Blueprint communication explicitly refers to the (by that time upcoming) EU adaptation strategy (EC 2013b).

Floods Directive

The effect of climate change on flood risk is still uncertain, but under a SRES A1B scenario (IPCC 2000) roughly two-thirds of the modelled increase is due to economic growth and one-third can be attributed to climate change by the middle of this century (Jongman, et al., 2014).

In the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) reporting in the first cycle of implementation of the Floods Directive (EU 2007), only one third of Member States explicitly considered climate change or socio-economic changes as long-term developments. This surprised the assessors based on the substantially increase of flood losses in Europe over decades due to increasing wealth located in flood-prone areas and climate change (EC 2015b). However, only from the second cycle of implementation onwards (2016-2021) the likely impact of climate change is mandatory to include in the PFRA.

The climate change impacts mentioned in the PFRA so far are mainly changes in precipitation and to a lower extent changes in temperature, sea level rise, increase in extreme events and change in run-off. Changes in snowmelt, wind direction and wind speed and surface flow are only mentioned for a few Units of Management (UoM).

For the Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs), no explicit reference to climate change is made in the Floods Directive. However, in the reporting guidance (EC 2013a) a summary text on the methods used to include climate change in the FHRM scenarios can be reported as optional information.

Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) are produced by the end of 2015, including a programme of measures. The likely impact of climate change on the occurrence of floods has to be taken into account but for the review of FRMPs only. So strictly spoken, the floods directive does not ask for it in the first cycle of implementation. At least from the screening of the draft FRMPs doesn’t seem fully considered or it is unclear if taken into account (WRc 2015).

The shifts in the extremes, rather than the trend in the averages are likely to be the biggest challenge for adaptation (EEA 2012c; IPCC 2012)and likely to be the cost drivers for adapting the infrastructure (OECD 2013). While the strategies for disaster risk management developed within the context of climate change requires measures that are specific to the local circumstances, including a sustainable land management and spatial planning (IPCC 2012), the river basin approach avoids passing on negative consequences further downstream and for international river basin districts both the water framework directive and floods directive it has to be ensured that relevant information is exchanged and the plans are coordinated. Transboundary river basins pose especially complex challenges for building adaptive capacity.

Nature legislation

While in the Birds and Habitats Directives (EU 1992, 2010) climate change and adaptation aren’t mentioned at all, it has a strong presence in the Biodiversity 2020 strategy (EC 2011a). Although Climate change is not having a major impact at present, it is expected to have an increasing impact in the future. Nevertheless, climate change is relatively infrequently reported as a pressure or threat in the 2007-to-2012 Habitat Directive Article 17 reports (in 3% of habitat and 2% of Member State species assessments it is reported as a pressure, and 5% and 4%, respectively, as a threat) (EEA 2015d).

Adapting the Natura 2000 network to climate change based on current policy requires voluntary action by the Member States, which may not be timely or ambitious enough (Verschuuren, 2010). A targeted guidance document specifically on climate change and Natura 2000 was published, to optimally address the impacts of climate change in managing the network's protected sites (EC 2013e).

4.2.2        Socio-economic change, land use change and spatial planning

Flood risk management is related to socio-economic development by two mechanisms. The first and most important mechanism is that as a result of socio-economic development the economic value of the assets in floodplains increases. This in turn increases the justifiable investments for protection measures.

Recent estimates of calculated future flood losses are presented in Figure 4.4. With all uncertainties inherent to these data, the picture is clear that flood losses can be expected to increase 5-fold by 2050 and up to 17-fold by 2080. The major share of this increase (70 to 90%) is due to socio-economic development, the remainder (10 to 30 %) to climate change (Ciscar, et al., 2014; Jongman, et al., 2014).

Figure 4.4       Annual flood losses for 2050 and 2080 compared to the ‘actual situation’

Note: For SRES scenarios A1B and E1 and for current and future economy. The SRES scenarios cover a wide range of the main driving forces of future emissions, from demographic to technological and economic developments (IPCC 2000; van der Linden, and Mitchell, 2009)

Sources: (EEA 2012a) (*)(Ciscar, et al., 2014; Jongman, et al., 2014)
(*) reference to be updated after update of CLIM039

The second mechanism is that the change in land use that results from socio-economic development may lead to changes in the hydrological characteristics of a catchment, which in turn may cause an increase in peak floods. This effect, however, is difficult to demonstrate in real data, and only becomes significant in small catchments with large-scale changes in land use.

The methods to quantify socio-economic changes like urban sprawl and soil sealing land use and especially their potential future impacts on water management should be further improved (EC 2015b). Whether or not land use change significantly affects flood risks depends first on the location of the land use change. Land use changes in the floodplains have a direct impact on flood risk because they affect the invested values at risk, and they may also increase water levels during floods. The effects of changes in the wider catchment depend on the scale of changes relative to the scale of the catchment (e.g. (ICPR 2006)).

Guiding land use change can, it least in theory, be realised by spatial planning policies. However, Spatial planning is not subject to EU regulation, except at sea under the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (EU 2014b). In practice, the implementation of planning policies is often incomplete due to a lack of specific instruments and measures for implementation in practice (Mickwitz, et al., 2009; Swart, et al., 2009; IPCC 2014, Chapter 23: Europe)(. In addition, spatial planning and water management have for a long time been viewed as separate management problems (EEA 2012c), where the interests of flood risk management are sometimes valued lower than those of competing economic functions such as agriculture (see also text box 4.5), housing (ARUP 2011) or infrastructure.

At European level there is no regulation in place to organise a process to timely signal the effects that land use changes may have on flood risk management or water body status and to take mitigating measures. This could be a role of the SEA and EIA directives (see subsection 4.1.4).

4.2.3        Financing instruments

River restoration and flood risk management projects are mostly financed from national funds. With public budgets under pressure (e.g. (EC 2012c; Despotovic, 2015; EEA et al., 2015; Morse, 2014)). There is a tendency within at least some of the competent authorities to focus their spending on their core tasks, i.e. flood protection. An example is the Dutch Flood protection programme (Hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma 2013), which only subsidizes 'sober and efficient' protection measures. This trend is contradictory to the trend to adopt more integrative solutions to meet the complex interests involved in floodplains. As a result, the additional investments required to implement integrative measures rather than sectoral measures are not directly or fully covered by national funds. Additional funding by other stakeholders, e.g. NGO's, national or local authorities is then required.

Innovative ways that may help to cover these expenses are Payment for Watershed Services (PWS) and Water Funds. PWS belong to the wider category of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and are voluntary mechanisms to maintain or enhance the provision of ESs (EC, 2015d). Water Funds are innovative ways to finance water management, to ensure the supply of environmental services from a healthy watershed and promote integrated and participated watershed management based on a long-term work plan (EC, 2015d).

At EU level, EU-LIFE program is the EU's financial instrument to support environmental, nature conservation and climate action projects throughout the EU. By then end of 2014, searching in the life project databases with the keyword “wetland”, which includes floodplains, 239 projects popped-up, and with the keyword “aquatic ecosystems”, where riparian zones and floodplains are an integral part, 54 projects were shown.. The new LIFE+ Integrated Projects offer funding possibilities for nature-based solutions and NWRM.

A core issue in these solutions is that a stronger case than presently available is needed to underpin the cost- effectiveness of integrative nature-based solutions. The Ecosystem Services approach is an important instrument in this respect, but cases based on 'willingness to pay' are not considered strong enough to hold in court (EEA et al., 2015); although in other cases, this approach has been welcomed by policy makers for making such services visible. Promising services are those that lead to cost savings on maintenance. Building stronger cases will not only be instrumental in attracting funds, but also and in parallel in building up institutional and public support.

Where most of the nature-based solutions for flood risk management can be found in the prevention and protection of flooding (see also the introduction of chapter 4), necessary to reduce the overall flood losses, the FD in addition focusses on preparedness with (often non-structural) measures like flood forecasting and flood warning. However, one may not forget that – as total protection does not exist – financial instruments also need to be in place for the response and recovery phases (during and after a flood). Because people and their goods are threatened, decisions have to be taken under high uncertainty and time pressure they often have less attention for ecosystem services or nature-based solutions. Their scale of applicability ranges from international solidarity (like the European Union Solidarity Fund, see Box 4.2), up to individual initiatives (like flood insurance, see Box 4.3).

4.2.4        Governance

The available evidence of the progress made in the implementation of both the WFD and the FD indicates that governance-related issues will need continued attention. According to the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate change (EC 2013b), an important challenge is in the coordination across the various levels of planning and management. A similar hint can be derived from the screening of the draft RBMPs, provisionary as it is, when it states that international coordination seems to lag behind, that co-ordination of the setting of objectives has only been achieved in less than half of the UoMs investigated, and that public consultation on these objectives only took place a little over half of the RBDs/UoMs (WRc 2015). These numbers can improve in the final reporting for 2015, but for the moment there seems to be a discrepancy between the generally accepted benefit of early involvement and the apparent late reporting on public participation (WRc 2015).

The NWRM report on Policy coordination (EC 2014c) sketches a varying picture of governance arrangements for the WFD (which also affects NWRM), stating that in many countries the structures for the WFD implementation built on the existing structures. As these were different across the EU before the WFD, they are different until now. As some governance-related elements are shared between the FD and the WFD like appointing competent authorities, defining river basin districts units of management, organising public participation, or ensuring international coordination where appropriate, governance offers potential synergies between the two.

Also the (IPCC 2014) identifies weaknesses in present governance arrangements, such as a lack of concrete instruments beyond a general level of policy formulation and a lack of institutional frameworks to support (climate) adaptation.

From experiences from France, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Sweden one can conclude that the FD is implemented differently across the EU, and even within one country (van Eerd, et al., 2015; Głosińska, 2014; Hartmann, and Spit, 2015; Hedelin, 2015; Heintz, et al., 2012; Vinke-de Kruijf, et al., 2015). Differences within a country may occur when the responsibilities for implementation are positioned at the regional or local level (e.g. federal states in Germany or municipalities in Sweden). Five more general issues for implementing the FD were identified:

1. Capacity: the FD introduces new tasks to governmental organisations. Their capacities may not be up to these tasks, such as: thinking in a river basin perspective, designing space for the river measures, mapping flood risks, engaging with stakeholders.

2. Timing: the tight deadlines of the Directive are seen as a mismatch with implementation of the ambitious aim to change from flood control to flood risk management.

3. Vertical coordination: the Directive requires coordination across national and regional authorities, yet this is not necessarily in place or the responsibilities are not well defined.

4. Stakeholder engagement: stakeholder engagement is necessary for implementation and support of local actors, yet remains difficult to be put into practice.

5. Institutional change: depending on (a) the ambitions a region has to change its flood policy and (b) its current institutional structure, changes in institutions and legislation are required to implement the EU Floods Directive.

The OECD recently developed a tool for the analysis of governance arrangements (OECD 2015), which give a complete list of elements to be taken into consideration. Figure 4.5 represents a summary overview, for further explanation we refer to the source document.

Figure 4.5       Overview of Governance Principles

Source: (OECD 2015).

The interlinkages between the FD and the WFD with respect to public participation are visualised in figure 4.6. Key success factors for public participation in water management, and its relation with the wider governance isin water management, is presented in a recent EEA report based on eight case studies (EEA 2014e). Synergy in public participation and information exchange may also be found with the Seveso III directive (EU 2012c) which puts much emphasis on providing information to the public.

Evaluation of the public participation process for the FD – where they shall encourage active involvement of interested parties for the FRMP, while the PFRA/APSFR and FHRM are simply ‘made available’ to the public -  is not yet considered. A joined approach for WFD and FD may prove to be beneficial. The evaluation must include a clear definition of the goals of the process. These are formulated in the FD, but also other more generally stated objectives for example as formulated in the case studies (EEA 2014e) or by OECD (Buckle, 2015) may be included.

Figure 4.6       Source of flooding for historic flood events reported under the PFRA

Source: (EC 2014d)

How the different governance principles are combined into a specific governance model, depends on the local situation: the key issues (and most important links to other activities and legislation), the stakeholder composition, previous experiences, administrative set-up …. The Governance Principles were used in interviews with experts from two European river basins, the Guadiana and the Rhine (text boxes 4.4 and 4.5), answering to which extent each of the principles is present in their river basin with regards to the FD implementation.