5.3 Coordination of flood risk management with adjacent policy fields

please provide general comments ons ection 5.3 here

(bullet pojn ts will be replaced for final version)

Many efforts have already been devoted to the coordination of different policy instruments at the European, national and local level within the water area and with other policy fields. Nevertheless, there’s room for further improvement, mainly by better implementation (EC 2012c). A common definition of goals and objectives from the initiating of projects onwards and with the active involvement of stakeholders (EEA 2014e) makes the potential synergies in between activities competing for and on the same area visible and creates opportunities for innovative financing and a governance model that combines socio-economic with environmental goals.

The interlinkages between the FD, WFD, BHDs and CAP take place (amongst others) through measures that modify land use, e.g. by afforestation or by frequently storing excess precipitation. An improved hydrological modelling at catchment scale could reduce the uncertainty about the effectiveness of separate small-scale measures. Subsequently, linking many small-scale measures together to make a real impact on flood risk management requires long-term and deliberate spatial planning.

A fully integrated approach between policies considered in this report would require a nexus approach. Elements to be implemented on the short term could be the adoption of a harmonized set of scenarios for climate change and socio-economic development, procedures for using them, and early identification of the effects of planned land use change on hydrology and flood risk management. The latter could be implemented by adding a ‘hydrological paragraph’ to the SEA and EIA.

Interlinkages between topics and policies

There are strong interlinkages between the FD and the WFD, both in procedures and in the programmes of measures, but further improvements in the integration are possible at different levels. At the level of measure implementation, the integration is realised due to the stakeholder participation, but at national and EU-level the directives are seen separated. The interlinkages between the FD and the BHDs are to be found in a limited number of procedural arrangements, and in field measures that contribute to water retention while protecting environmental values. The effectiveness of these measures is known in theory but may differ depending on field conditions and lack of monitoring. The scale of the measures as compared to the scale of the catchment or floodplain is an important factor.

For the interlinkages between the FD and CAP, the interlinkages are in most cases secondary as compared to WFD and BHDs. Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRMs) offer an opportunity to support water, nature and agriculture policies. The assessment of the effectivity of these measures for flood risk management requires dedicated hydrological studies. There is no 'one size fits all' solution. A recent development in the hydropower sector is the recognition of the role that dams can have in flood risk management. This offers opportunities that in an integrated approach may lead to changes in dam management.

Spatial planning is not subject to EU regulation, except at sea under the MSPFD (EU 2014b). However, without spatial planning and effective enforcement, many types of measures will be excluded as a result of socio-economic developments, because the necessary room will simply be occupied by competing uses.

Working with natural processes

The implementation of measures is where of all the above comes together. Bottlenecks that were identified in the implementation of Green rather than Grey Infrastructure are:

• technical: strength of green infra for flood protection; hydrological effectiveness of NWRM, in short and long term;

• economic/financial: underpinning of cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency of measures ; and

• governance and practical guidelines for implementation.

A wide variety of structural (where infrastructure is build) and non-structural measures is at hand and could be applied when implementing the FD. Emerging knowledge and technologies should be applied. NWRMs aim to maintain and improve ESs and are part of a wider group of measures working with natural processes. Measures working with natural processes are not only applied along rivers and in floodplains but also in an urban context (e.g. green roofs or rain gardens) or in coastal areas. Here an example of a measure working with natural processes but not aiming to increase retention is the ‘sand motor’ (or sand engine): an innovative way of coast protection and maintenance. Wind, waves and currents will spread the sand naturally along the coast and nature is used to build and maintain natural coastal defences.

Ecosystem-based adaptation and green infrastructure are in many cases key part of a cost-effective way to deal with scenario uncertainty by delaying or avoiding lock-in to classical infrastructure-building water management to provide safety while providing manifold co-benefits for the environment (e.g. environmental objectives of the WFD) and the different water-using sectors (EEA 2012b; OECD 2013). To overcome the bottlenecks for the implementation of measures working with natural processes, the flexibility of the measures needs to be mentioned. These measures, contrary to most hard defences and engineering works can be adapted with progressive insights. Even when each case is unique and other pressures and key stakeholders are involved, there are many lessons to learn from projects already implemented. Therefore, additional guidelines and examples of successes and failures are recommended.

An appropriate role for inherent uncertainties 

Actual flood risk management is surrounded by a multitude of uncertainties. Changes in flood regimes (mean annual discharges, maximum discharges, and their timing) show a mixed pattern across Europe. However, even in those cases where a trend in flow regime is visible, it is difficult to separate a potential climate change signal from other drivers of change (land use, infrastructure). There are indications that the increase in reported flood damage should mainly be attributed to economic development as well as to better reporting, and that an increased flood frequency because of climate change remains uncertain. Nevertheless, climate change deserves priority, because the lead-time for measures to adapt is often very long. Scenarios and foresight studies are recommended as tools. Scenarios must differ by the main uncertainties, and the uncertainties communicated in a suitable way (Hall, et al., 2014).

Sustainable solutions look beyond the protection of flood risk management measures, but link it to the overlapping areas of vulnerability, environmental quality and the delivery of ESs. Driving forces and pressures, like socio-economic and political developments on all scales (from local to European and global) can only be estimated with a certain level of detail. This has implications for land use, protection of floodplains, or the available funding.

Guiding principles for next steps in flood risk management

Flood risk management, linking economic, social, environmental and cultural aspects, will have to be based on social-environmental cost-benefit approaches, balancing the needs of the environmental and the sustainability of ESs with the needs of a multitude of sectors. Whatever the names used: NWRMs, building with nature, room for the river, green measures etc., working with natural processes is a key process to maximize the common goals and objectives of water management, economic development, nature conservation and ESs. These objectives start from an integrated approach on RBD level, requiring improved reporting and implementation practices under the FD to make the hotspot analysis and European overview.

In a following step, the European and RBD-level overview has to be translated into national flood risk objectives.

Notwithstanding the different context in countries, the discussion on sustainable flood risk management seems, judging from the evidence presented in this report, to converge on the ambition to apply the following principles underlying the choice of measures:

• Consider cost-effective investments as part of a system at appropriate scale(s) (OECD 2015);

• Go beyond the economic benefits and include environmental and societal benefits in the assessment of (programmes of) measures (EU 2007, Art. 7 §3);

• Use the framework of Ecosystem Services to identify societal costs and benefits of measures (COWI 2014);

• Use the principles of nature-based solutions to identify infrastructural measures in order to serve multiple purposes;

• Use Green Infrastructure and Natural Water Retention Measures where possible, but combine them with more traditional types of measures where needed;

• Minimise investment needs; this supports  the adaptive capacity of water managers and reduces the chances of lock-in situations  (OECD 2015);

• Avoid building unnecessary future liabilities, apply adaptive management approaches where feasible;

• Identify the weakest links. This may for instance imply that before technical measures are designed in great detail, efforts should be directed towards improving governance arrangements.

[to be complemented with roles of different stakeholders to make the cross-cutting approaches work: role of national, local authorities, role of stakeholders, role of private sector including the insurance industry etc. Good examples, preferably applicable on a large part of Europe are welcomed during the consultation period ]