Table of contents
- 0. Flood Risk - general comments
- 1. Executive summary
- 2. Introduction
- 2.1 Floods in Europe
- 2.2 Environmental aspects of floods and floodplains
- 2.3 Floodplain areas areas
- 2.4 Strategic flood risk management
- 2.5 Outline and reading guidance
- 3 Status of Europe's floodplains
- 3.1 Environmental importance of floodplains
- 3.2 Status of Europe’s floodplains: remaining areas and environmental quality
- 3.3 Anthropogenic Drivers and Pressures
- 3.4 Floodplain management and restoration
- 4 Policy developments and implementation
- 4.1 European policies influencing the management of floods and floodplains
- 4.2 Flood risk management, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction
- 4.3 Gaps in knowledge and policy integration
- 5 Conclusions
- 5.1 Data on floods and floodplains
- 5.2 Floodplains in Europe
- 5.3 Coordination of flood risk management with adjacent policy fields
- Acronyms and abbreviations
- References
5.2 Floodplains in Europe
Large parts (up to 80 or even 90 %) of the previously intermittently inundated lands next to rivers are nowadays disconnected from the river channel and do not act as active floodplains any longer. Main pressures are the economic developments in the low-lying areas, the regulation of water levels, and loss of connectivity due to flood protection measures.
Land use changes from natural, mainly forested, vegetation into agriculture, housing development and industries turn irregular but rather frequent inundations into undesired phenomena because of the economic damage caused. When at the same time the water level is regulated for navigation or hydropower and areas are protected by hard flood protection measures, the remaining active floodplains are inundated with higher water levels. Nevertheless, remaining floodplains are biodiversity hotspots and play a key role in sustainable flood risk management as these are the locations where NWRMs can be implemented most efficient and effective.
NWRMs will especially be beneficial for smaller flood events. As these happen more regularly, they still contribute significantly to the reduction of flood risk. In addition, their capacity to maintain and improve a multitude ESs should be taken into account when making a societal-environmental cost-benefit analysis, as well as their role in climate change adaptation (and mitigation as CO2 and CH4 sinks).
The uncertainties about their effectiveness, especially during extreme flood events, and the variety of beneficiaries make it hard to make the step from ‘in principle agreeing’ on NWRMs towards their implementation. Examples of good practice and successful projects can be shared but one of the characteristics is their context dependency making any case different. Stakeholder involvement however is a key for all of them. Where working with nature is impossible due to the socio-economic values to be preserved, the alternative must not always be the classical hard engineering infrastructure. By ‘greening the grey’ and making a network of green infrastructures the necessary protection levels are combined with a minimum loss of habitat and preserving the remaining ESs to the extent possible.