Flood risks – do we manage them? Challenges & perspectives in the light of the upcoming

implementation of the EU-Directive

NGO-experiences from Germany

Foto: Ernst Paul Dörfler

CIS WG Floods meeting

Brussels, 19th of October 2007

Dr. Gerhard TimmBund für Umwelt und Naturschutz

Deutschland (BUND) e.V.

Challenges to be solved

1997-2006 (Europe)

• 5 extreme flood events which normally

occure every 100 years (on avarage)

• > ½ million citizens affected

• > 700 citizens died

• ca. 25 billion Euro (assured) damage

• ca. 11 billion Euro damage in Germany

(> 9 billion on Elbe river in 2002)

Floods – only an undesireable event?

• typical for natural water courses and river

landscapes

• essential for floodplains & their functions

(biodiversity, good drinking water..)

• flood damage is mainly driven by the

homo sapience

Main reasons for damaging flood events - „insights“ from Germany (1995)

• shortening or other hydromorphological

modifications of the rivers & cutting off wetlands

• the accumulation of assets in natural flooding

zones

• reduced awareness of risks/ false sense of security

• unsustainable land & water uses in the

catchment area

• the consequences of anthropogenic climate change

• insufficient flood management

The loss of hydromophological water quality as an „indicator“ for flood damage risks …

2%19%

46%

33%

no impact

little modifications

servere modification

significantly orcompletely modified

The structure of water courses in Germany Source: LAWA 2000

…and WFD failure

Situation of the river water bodies in Germany (probability to achieve good ecological status in 2015) Source: BMU 2004

12%achieves objective

26%unclear

62%at risk

„..hydromorphological intereferences are the most frequent reason why many (surface)

water bodies probably won‘t achieve the WFD objectives..“

(national report, 2005)

Drivers for hydromorphological alterations of water bodies & wetlands

• settlements, industrial plants and transport infrastruccture on the floodplains and wetlands

• unsustainable farming & forestry

• constructions & activities for unsustainable navigation

• hydropower plants

• (technical) flood management infrastructure

Elbe River Basin – one example

Interferences in the water balance & runoff

Elbe-River:

• shortening by 120 km (- 10% of the total length)

• > 1000 km dykes

• reduction of wetlands down to 838 km² (- 86,2%)

Elbe-Basin:

• > 500 km dykes on tributary streams

• > 10.000 dams

• > 50% of the area is used for arable farming and settlements

3 approaches for flood management

• the ecologically sound approach

• the technical approach

• awareness & information

-> all are important but it is essential to apply them in the right „hierarchy“ (awareness rising – work with/for nature – technical approach as the last resort)

The German approach of Flood management

• divided competencies – role of communities/

states

• 90‘s : first approaches of coordination

(Rhine, LAWA-Guideline)

• 3 pillar approach: natural retention,

technical & precautionary measures

• Flood action programm (2002)

- „Room for the rivers“

• German Flood Act as one outcome (2005)

Similiarities between the German Flood Act & the EU Flood Directive

• risk assessment

• mapping of risk/ flooding areas

• plans and measures to reduce the risk

• management cycle & public participation

establishment of flooding areas until 2012

in principle prohibitionfor new settlements

dyke relocation andfloodplain

protection/ restorationas binding components

Additional positive provisions in the

German Flood Act

Main open issues within the Flood Act (I)

• outcome reflects the severe divergent interests in the framework of the legislative deliberations

• crucial issues have been fallen out & delegated to the states

- effective control of erosion caused by arable farming (greenland)

- entirely prevent new settlements in flooding areas

- restrict buildings & use of hazardous substances in flood risk areas

- clear preference for ecologically sound flood measures

- guarantee active public involvement when establishing flood plans

„principle of flexibility“

Main open issues within the Flood Act (II)

• aspects which allow most flexibility (no issue at all)

- coordination and integration within the WFD framework (prioritization)

- clear objectives (eg. floodplain restoration)

- sufficient competencies & requirements for the national

government

Similiarities between Flood Act & EU-Flood Directive:

- role of ecologically sound measures?- role of WFD objectives?

Challenges at the national level for the implementation of the Floods Act

• a gap of a (consistent) integrative strategy

• subsidies for technical flood management (share of 60%)

• efforts in agriculture, navigation, energy, envi-fees?

• diverge from flood provisions in 2009 (federalism reform)

Main shortcomings at the state‘s level (I) –legal transposition/ drafts

• no transposition in time (only two states so far) and sufficient fullfillment of the legal mandate

• definition of flooding areas varies (also polders etc.)

• agriculture profits - no greeland provisions/ conversion possible

• some deteriorations (floodplain forests)

• definition of flood risk areas & measures mostly unclear

• flood plans: insufficient „1:1“ approach (=„copy & pace“) – participation, role of floodplains and WFD remains mostly unclear

Main challenges at the state‘s level for implementation

• focus on technical measures & rebuildings in risk areas

- eg. Oder River (BB): 130 of 160 km dykes have been restored

- „Elbe resolution“ (2006): 45% of the dykes will be upgraded

- Bavaria & Baden Württemberg: upgrade of dikes & dams as

climate adaptation strategie (15+ x%)

• intended restoration of floodplains is insignificant: < 4% of total possible retention area (Elbe, Danube)

• .. and fails: in BB only 5% of the promised floodplains have been

restored

• no consistent WFD implementation (HMWB, economics)

Main challenges at the state‘s level (I))

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Technicalmeasures

ecologicalmeasures

Expenditure for flood management in 3 German

states

Ratio technical and ecological flood

management measures

SN LS BY

Not all is bad – tentative positive aspects

• initiative for a national floodplain action plan (& with objectives) in the context of the biodiversity strategy

• flood plain is binding for other sector plans (BB)

• coordination with WFD within the first cycle (SH)

• the provision for green land farming (SN)

Conclusions – overall recommendations

• flexibility can be useful, but it is crucial to ensure a

consistent & EU wide clear approach

• role of natural buffer zones is very important

• envi-economical approach – let the economy work for a sustainable approach

• compliance & prioritization of the WFD-objectives (starting with the first cycle)

Recommended instruments and procedures

• an EU-wide action programm for wetlands in 2009 with clear objectives

• CIS recommendations for WFD integration (first cycle)

• clear technical formats for reporting schemes with special focus on flood plains

• EU-funding (CAP, TEN-T, Regional Funds) in compliance with a sustainable flood management

• enhance research and exchange for an ecologically sound flood management

• use WISE for more transparency

Thanks for your attention.

Dr. Gerhard TimmBund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V.

Gerhard.Timm@bund.netwww.bund.net