4.3 Gaps in knowledge and policy integration

please provide general comments on section 4.3 here

Notwithstanding the detailed data and information available at local scale, often covering a wide range of themes, there are gaps to be closed for a better implementation of the floods directive and for a more environmentally focussed flood risk management.

4.3.1 Data

As seen in the reporting on past floods in the PFRA (and in the EFID database) (*), data on the environmental impacts of floods are scarce. The subtypes of consequences foreseen in the reporting for the floods directive (affecting water body status, affecting protected areas and pollution sources) (EC 2013a) seem to cover the most important aspects with the exemption of a subtype on erosion and/or sedimentation.

(*) link to be added in final version

Where floodplains are approximated by the areas with alluvial soil, wetlands, of the hydraulic floodplain for a given return period, it already becomes clear that data on delineations of floodplains are incomplete. At European scale, the data must not be as detailed as for the planning of measures and development of specific areas, but actual data availability does not allow a proper status and trends assessment of Europe’s floodplains.

Two other data gaps are related to this one: detailed information on land use in floodplains and an overview of flood protection measures. Where Europe has good spatial data on land use and protected areas like Corine Land Cover (CLC) (EEA 2014b), Natura2000 (EEA 2015b) or CDDA (EEA 2014d) (^[1]), high resolution data needed to estimate potential flood losses or changes in ecosystem services provided are not available, even with the Corine Land Cover changes (EEA 2014a) available on a more detailed scale.

In addition, information on flood protection infrastructure is unavailable across Europe, and these linear infrastructures are not included in land use maps like CLC. In most studies nowadays where most of Europe is covered, simple assumptions as ‘protection against a flood with a return period of 100 years in place’ are used, updated with more detailed values where available but never including local variations (e.g. (Ciscar, et al., 2011; Jongman, et al., 2014; Mokrech, et al., 2015; Rojas, et al., 2013)).

Notwithstanding the large projects on the (methodologies for the) assessments of ecosystem services and attempts to quantify them in a global context like the (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003) (MA) (^[2]) or the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB) (UNEP 2010) or - on a European scale - in the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) (EC 2013f, 2014e), specific data to underpin the economic justification of measures, including benefits from ESs, aren’t always available. The same can be said about green infrastructures (GI), where the need for better data is identified (EC 2013c) to promote GI solutions in spatial planning and flood protection infrastructure decision-making processes.

[2] See for an overview of reports http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Reports.html# online

The remaining data gaps must not divert attention from the fact that more and more data are available. Although not generated or assessed specifically for nature based flood protection measures, they are very useful, especially at project level. As with measures to adapt to climate change, most of the flood protection measures based on working with natural processes or natural water retention measures are low-regret measures. The missing information must not therefore prevent projects from being implemented. Better fit for purpose information in the future can be expected from the reporting under the floods directive as well as a further integration of management plans on water and nature and beyond (including sectors like spatial planning, agriculture, tourism etc.). Nevertheless, to achieve high effectiveness and efficiency from natural water retention measures, beneficial for flood risk management, water management and nature conservation an assessment based on all information available on catchment or river basin district scale remains necessary.

4.3.2        Knowledge and methodology

It remains difficult to quantify, not to speak about monetarize, all the costs and benefits related to Natural Water Retention Measures, including the opportunity costs like lost yields, required resources, time to implementation or maintenance costs. This constitutes a barrier for financing and thus implementation (EC, 2015b, 2015d). 

Where the idea of NWRMs and GI as an essential contribution to sustainable flood risk management gets more and more common, there is still a way to go to select it as the primary choice for implementation. This is related to the uncertainty of costs and benefits over a longer time, but also because uncertainty on maximising the benefits for all economic sectors. A single goals solution has less of these uncertainties, but at the same time almost ever delivers the same potential for ESs and other co-benefits.

The lack of reported data on environmental flood impacts may partially be attributed to knowledge gaps in the underlying mechanisms. The guidance documents for reporting under the floods directive (EC 2013a) require an update and explanation to have replies more comparable throughout Europe restressing the link with the WFD and making the link to nature policies more obvious.

The impact of socio-economic developments on future flood losses is large. The question is if these developments will be adequately accounted for in the FRMPs.

Where the Sendai declaration on DRR (UN 2015) talks about improving (environmental) resilience, the focus is on damage and impact reduction of extreme events. Both DRR and FRM more and more look at the whole risk management cycle (see introduction chapter 4); but where a sustainable flood risk management incorporates co-benefits and the maintenance or elaboration of ESs, this topic is largely absent in the DRR community. .

4.3.3        Policies

As stated in the water Blueprint (EC 2012c) there remains a need for a better implementation of water policies and mainstreaming the water policy objectives into other policies. In a report for the European Parliament it is stated that, especially with regard to floodplain restoration, the implementation of measures is hindered by a lack of effective tools to design the most cost-efficient measures (Zandstra, 2015). The delayed floodplain restoration across Europe leads to a cost that can be avoided by better implementation of legislation of over 15 billion Euros per year (Zandstra, 2015).

Where water quality and pollution issues are dealt with in many European policies, like WFD, but also UWWTD, DWD, BWD IPPC or SEVESO, quantitative management of water in general requires an unanimous decision of the European Council according to the EU treaty (EU 2012a). The revised CAP includes water use measures, but the decision to add the WFD to the list of issues for cross-compliance was postponed.

Floodplains are under pressure from activities like urban settlement, infrastructure works or agricultural developments, both existing and further developing. Spatial planning instruments linking flood risk management to agricultural practices and urban development are lacking or not enforced. The lack of coherence between sector-specific and water policies is hindering an effective achievement of water policy goals an integrated management of floodplain areas where ESs are maximized.

There is not only a role for EU policies, in domains like agriculture, energy or navigation to better coordinate with water policies. A (potential) role can also be seen for financial instruments like the Cohesion Funds when implementing measures relevant for flood risk management and with consequences for the spatial configuration and connectivity of the floodplain. Many planning processes are not steered from an EU-level, but are national or local regulations and policies. The coordination during the implementation of measures can only be framed on a European level (e.g. by imposing stakeholder involvement or cross-compliance) but have to be implemented on a catchment level.