WWF Policy Briefing: Living with Floods

POLICY BRIEFING

Living with floods:Achieving ecologicallysustainable floodmanagement in Europe

July 2004

Morava river near confluence with Danube riverCredit: Daphne Institute for Applied Ecology, Slovakia

This paper was drafted by Markus Schneidergruber, Miroslava Cierna and Tim Jones with contributionsfrom: Francisco Tavares and Eva Royo Gelabert (European Water Policy Function, WWF Living WatersProgramme – Europe); members of the WWF European Freshwater Team, especially in Hungary,Belgium, the Alps, Spain, The Netherlands, UK (Scotland) and Germany (Auen Institute); and DAPHNE– Centre for Applied Ecology (Slovakia).

For further information please contact:

Eva Royo GelabertWWF European Policy Office36 Avenue de Tervuren, box 121040 Brussels, BelgiumTel. + 32 2 743 88 14e-mail: [email protected]

Copies of this paper can be found at:http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_do/policy_and_events/epo/initiatives/freshwater.cfm

Table of Contents

Floods in Europe: Setting the scene – Why this paper? ............................................ 1

1. Floods in Europe: Trends and impacts ................................................................... 7

1.1- Impacts of floods .............................................................................................................................71.1.1- Direct losses ............................................................................................................................................................81.1.2- Indirect (longer term) impacts.................................................................................................................................9

1.2- Recent flood events .......................................................................................................................10

1.3- Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................13

2. The causes of increasingly severe flooding............................................................ 15

2.1- Changes in river-basin land use ....................................................................................................15

2.2- River regulation.............................................................................................................................17

2.3- Floodplain loss ..............................................................................................................................19

2.4- Climate change..............................................................................................................................20

2.5- Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................22

3. Integrated River Basin Management and ecologically sustainable floodmanagement ............................................................................................................. 23

3.1- What is Integrated River Basin Management?..............................................................................233.1.1- IRBM: Why do we need it and how to do it? .........................................................................................................233.1.2- WWF’s seven guiding principles for effective IRBM.............................................................................................243.1.3- The EU Water Framework Directive and IRBM ...................................................................................................24

3.2- Benefits of an IRBM approach to flood management...................................................................243.2.1- Measures for ecologically sustainable flood management in river basin planning...............................................263.2.3- Strategic planning of flood management at the river basin level ..........................................................................273.2.4- International and transboundary cooperation for flood management...................................................................283.2.5- Financial instruments for IRBM............................................................................................................................28

3.3- Case studies of ecologically sustainable flood management.........................................................29Case study I: Morava river, Slovakia ..............................................................................................................................29Case study II: The river Clyde, Scotland, UK..................................................................................................................32Case Study III: Tagliamento river, Italy ..........................................................................................................................35

3.4 – Conclusions .................................................................................................................................37

4. Policy tools in Europe for ecologically sustainable flood management ............. 39

4.1- EU policy tools..............................................................................................................................394.1.1- The Water Framework Directive: The right tool for ecologically sustainable flood management in Europe.......39

4.1.2- The WFD Common Implementation Strategy guidance documents and flood management................................. 404.1.2.1- The WFD CIS guidance document on "The role of wetlands in the Water Framework Directive" ........... 41

4.1.3- European initiative on flood prevention, protection and mitigation ..................................................................... 424.1.4- EU civil protection initiative. ................................................................................................................................ 44

4.2- Other European initiatives.............................................................................................................45

4.3- National policy initiatives .............................................................................................................454.3.1- Belgium ................................................................................................................................................................. 45

4.4- Local policy initiatives ..................................................................................................................474.4.1- Olsavica river, Slovakia ........................................................................................................................................ 474.4.2- Somerset Levels and Moors project, UK............................................................................................................... 48

4.5- Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................49

5. EU funding possibilities for ecologically sustainable flood management .......... 51

5.1- EU Solidarity (emergency) Fund ..................................................................................................51

5.2- Regional Development Funds .......................................................................................................535.2.1- Structural Funds ................................................................................................................................................... 545.2.2- Cohesion Fund/ISPA............................................................................................................................................. 55

5.3- Common Agricultural Policy ........................................................................................................56

5.4- LIFE-III .........................................................................................................................................57

5.5- Phare..............................................................................................................................................57

5.6- Others ............................................................................................................................................58

5.7- Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................59

6. Overview of policy recommendations for ecologically sustainable floodmanagement ............................................................................................................. 61

Annex 1- Key causes for excessive flooding - floodplain degradation.................... 63

Living with floods: Achieving ecologically sustainable flood management in Europe

1

Floods in Europe: Setting thescene – Why this paper?

During the last ten years or so, many Europeancountries have repeatedly suffered tragic lossof life and massive economic damage due tocatastrophic flooding. In 2003, floodsoccurred in Southern France in the Rhone andLoire rivers. In August 2002, scenes ofdevastated cities, towns and villages inAustria, the Czech Republic, Germany andRussia were flashed around the world, witheconomic costs estimated in the hundreds ofbillions of Euro (3,5). Almost immediately,questions began to be asked. Why has thishappened? What can be done to prevent suchlosses occurring repeatedly in the future?Coming just five years after the floods thatwrought havoc across Central Europe in thesummer of 1997, and less than a decade sincedramatic floods along the lower and middlecourses of the river Rhine, many people werealso asking why such events seem to behappening more often and causing moredamage than in the past.

A deadly cocktail

The answers to the question ‘why?’ are quiteclear. The floods of recent years have becomedisasters because of human mismanagement ofrivers, their floodplains and catchments.Virtually throughout Europe, river courseshave been straightened – often to assistnavigation – and constricted into artificiallynarrow channels by the construction of dikesto enable former floodplains to be used forfarming, urban development and transportlinks (see Annex I for more detail). The resultof all this straightening and narrowing is thatrivers are flowing faster and over a muchsmaller area than they would under naturalconditions. Floodwaters have nowhere to go,since the floodplains that would normally storethe excess flow quite safely have been cut offfrom their rivers. Inevitably, even thoughdikes are built higher and higher andconstantly reinforced – at a massive economic

cost – the waters will continue to breakthrough, catastrophically reclaiming theiroriginal course.

At the same time, land-use practices in manyriver basins (or catchments) are increasing thethreat of flooding downstream. The way inwhich land is farmed or developed can have adramatic impact on the amount and speed ofsurface water entering streams and rivers.Overgrazing, land compaction, deforestationand an increase in the area of impermeablesurface, such as tarmac and concrete, can alldramatically increase the flood risk (see AnnexI for more detail). Throw in the predictedgreater regularity of extreme weather events inEurope as a consequence of climate change,and you have a deadly cocktail set to bringfurther human suffering and financial loss tomillions of people and companies and acrossthe region.

Rivers – The dynamic lifeblood ofEurope

Rivers have always played a vital role inEuropean civilisation and development. Theyprovide water for drinking, farming, andindustry; yield rich fish harvests; act astransport corridors; and have thus supportedthe growth of most of Europe’s major cities –among them Budapest, London, Paris andVienna. A river is also a dynamic ecosystemthat constantly changes – from source to sea,from season to season – with characteristicsthat are influenced by a wide range of naturalfactors, including local climate and geology.

Rivers shape the land they flow through, butare also products of the land, taking with themthe sediment and dissolved substances thatenter watercourses. Land and water areecologically linked in a natural system knownas a river basin (often also called a catchmentor watershed). This is a complex systemincluding the river course, its network oftributaries, wetlands and groundwater, togetherwith all the land that they drain. Thefloodplains and wetlands within a river basin


2

are particularly important in maintaining itsproper functioning – the natural water cycle –and hold the key to reducing the impacts offlooding on human life and property. Theseplaces are also among Europe’s mostproductive wildlife habitats.

Flooding: A natural phenomenon

Floods occur naturally every year, usually inwinter or spring, but sometimes also inautumn, depending on the hydrological regimegoverning a given river (e.g. Alpine,Mediterranean, Atlantic). Frequency alsodepends on the amount of rain, especiallywhen the soil is already wet and cannot storeany more moisture. When special conditionsare met, which, according to statistics, happensevery 50, 100, 200 or 500 years, floods can beof exceptional height and have thuscatastrophic effects on riverine inhabitants andtheir properties, especially when they/these aretoo close to the river and/or on its floodplain.

Floods play an important ecological role andthis is crucial for society. They sustain andrenew ecological functions that are importantfor our economy (see also below). In linkingthe river and its floodplains, the floodwaterstransport nutrients, organisms and genes thatare important for fish fauna and waterfowlpopulations (food supply); biodiversity(genetic exchange); agriculture – since land isfertilised regularly and free of charge; andsediments – helping to compensate for loss ofland elsewhere due to coastal erosion. Floodsare also crucial for the replenishment ofgroundwater from which we obtain drinkingwater. In addition, water purification takesplace when floodplains are inundated becausebiochemical processes ‘filter’ water, recyclenutrients, transform organic pollutants and fixinorganic ones. Furthermore, floodsregenerate habitats through changes in waterlevels and physical force, which together causeerosion and deposition of river-banksediments, islands and softwood forests,resulting in a mosaic of biotopes supportinghigh biodiversity. All these functions have

positive socio-economic impacts, includingsupport for fisheries, ‘free’ fertilisation ofland, groundwater recharge, and others (seealso below).

Floodplain loss – The squandering of aprecious asset

Floodplains – the low-lying areas of landadjacent to rivers, lakes and coasts that areperiodically inundated with water – are amongthe most valuable, but also the most degraded,ecosystems in Europe. The wetlands thatoccur in these areas, such as marshes, wetmeadows and seasonally flooded forests, areexceptionally productive and of greatecological and socio-economic importance.

Since the arrival of the first inhabitants,floodplains have been used for fishing,hunting, supplying drinking water andharvesting. However, as technology hasadvanced, they have been progressively cut offfrom the rivers themselves, as part of well-intentioned efforts to boost agriculturalproduction, to increase the area of easilydeveloped flat land, to promote river transportand to increase energy production (see Annex Ifor more detail). Reduction of flooding andthe eradication of malaria have also beenimportant driving forces of historicalfloodplain loss in many parts of the region.Whatever the underlying causes, only afraction of Europe’s floodplains continue tofulfil their natural functions. For example,studies conducted by WWF show that morethan 80% of the original floodplain along theDanube river and 90% of the Rhine have beendestroyed.

During the last twenty years, however, it hasbeen realised that naturally functioningfloodplains provide an astonishing array ofenvironmental and socio-economic services1

1 For a overview of the economic values of wetlands world-wide please see: WWF Living Waters Programme; 2004; TheEconomic Values of the World’s Wetlands, available athttp://www.panda.org/downloads/freshwater/wetlandsbrochurefinal.pdf


3

completely free of charge (see below),including floodwater storage and mitigation offloodpeaks. Surges of floodwater spread outover a floodplain, which acts as a naturalstorage reservoir, releasing the water slowlyafterwards.

In addition to flood control, the other ‘free’floodplain services include2:

• Nutrient retention – when water slowsdown as it spreads across a floodplain, itssediment load settles out, providing thenatural fertiliser that has benefited farmersfor millennia. Nowadays, however, manyEuropean rivers contain unnaturally highlevels of nutrients due, for example, to therunoff of chemical fertilisers fromfarmland. Where floodplains still functionnormally, the deposition of sediment ontothe floodplain and riverbanks removessome of the nutrients from the river.Consequently, wetland vegetation convertsmost of the deposited nutrient load intolush new growth. This helps maintainriver water quality and prevents the build-up of pollution from substances such asnitrates and phosphates. Importantly, thenutrients contribute to the lower end of thefood chain. This can bring benefits to theorganisms that rely on bank-sidevegetation.

• Rich biodiversity – floodplains provideimportant habitats for a wide range offauna and flora, including many rare andendangered species. They are spawninggrounds for fish and act as importantmigration corridors, especially for waterbirds.

• Support for sustainable agriculture,forestry and fisheries – the highproductivity of floodplains and theirwetlands provides many opportunities for

2 Jones, T.; 2000; WWF Life Environment Project. Wise Useof Floodplains: Policy and Economic Analysis of FloodplainRestoration in Europe-Opportunities and Obstacle available athttp://www.floodplains.org.uk/pdf/other_reports/Policy%20and%20Economic%20Analysis%20-%20Tim%20Jones.pdf

sustainable agriculture and use of naturalresources.

• Groundwater recharge – when a floodplainis still connected to its river, the periodiccovering of land by floodwater enablesaquifers to be replenished, thereby helpingto secure supplies of water for human use.

• Recreation and tourism – the naturaldiversity and beauty of functioningfloodplains can be a valuable socio-economic asset, offering manyopportunities for the development ofsustainable tourism and recreation,including hiking, camping, home-stays,cycling, fishing, birdwatching, swimmingand painting.

A better future?

Floods are among the events widely regardedby people as ‘natural hazards’. They are a partof nature; they have always existed and willcontinue to exist. However, in nature, floodsare less about ‘threat’, ‘hazard’ and ‘damage’and more about periodic renewal of vitalecological processes. These should be taken inconsideration when humans develop floodmanagement strategies aimed at preventing orlimiting the detrimental effects of floods ontheir lives and property.

Nevertheless, human interference with naturalprocesses has led to radical alteration of riverbasins and exacerbation of flood risks anddamage to property and livelihoods. As aresult, severe flood events in Europe haveworsened in recent years, and the traditionalresponse to this flooding – building higher andhigher flood ‘defences’ such as dikes – hasonly seen flood waters getting deeper andmore and more constrained, further increasingtheir destructive potential. Now is the time forconstructive scrutiny of our past actions and ofthe current situation across Europe and.Governments and other decision-makers mustbegin to work with nature and not against it.


4

There is a compelling case to be made that theonly sustainable way forward – botheconomically and ecologically – is to restorenatural flood management systems byreconnecting rivers with their floodplains.This is an easy solution at face value, but thereare huge pressures for maintaining the statusquo. These range from policy instruments,such as the European Union (EU) CommonAgricultural Policy that encourages intensivefarming of floodplains, to the substantial short-term profits available from developing land forindustry or housing. With enlargement of theEU, there have come pressures for a new waveof major transport development schemesseeking to use floodplains because of therelatively low costs of building in flat, openareas.

At the same time, there have been attemptsmade, most notably by river Commissions3, todraw up and implement plans to manage riversand floods in an integrated manner. However,these good examples do not seem to have beenwidely used elsewhere. Now, the EU WaterFramework Directive (WFD), adopted in2000, sets the scene – across the EU andbeyond – for a completely new approach tomanaging water, based on integrated riverbasin management (see Chapters 3 and 4) as atool for achieving “good ecological andchemical status”. Though not specificallydrawn up as a mechanism to tackle flooding,by promoting a river basin approach andrequiring public participation and fullstakeholder consultation, the WFD offersunprecedented opportunities. Fullimplementation of the WFD should, inparticular, take into account the vital role offloodplains and other wetland areas inecologically sustainable flood management. Inthis sense, the WFD offers opportunities forenhancing safeguards for populated areas,

3 The Rhine agreement to manage floods at trans-nationalscale dates back 1982. The Integrated Rhine programme ofthe Land Baden-Wurtemberg dates back to 1988 andincorporates integration of flood retention areas, restoration offloodplains and enhancement of biodiversity. The LoireIntegrated Programme also pre-dates the EU’s WaterFramework Directive.

which Member States, public authorities andother stakeholders cannot afford to miss.

Aims and structure of this paper

This paper aims to demonstrate that:

1) Nature has a valuable role to play in floodmanagement via, for example, thefunctions carried out by wetlands andfloodplains in the hydrological cycle at theriver basin level. The paper calls this‘ecologically sustainable floodmanagement’. However, that this role hasbeen largely disregarded by publicauthorities in their flood managementpolicies and strategies. Furthermore, thatin many cases, the destruction of natureand changes in land-use patterns havecontributed to a dramatic worsening of theextent and impacts of flooding, as seenrecently in Europe.

2) Water and water-related policy tools todevelop such a new ‘ecologicallysustainable’ approach to floodmanagement in Europe already exist.That the main policy tool is IntegratedRiver Basin Management (IRBM), asintroduced by the EU Water FrameworkDirective (WFD), which requires thedevelopment of River Basin ManagementPlans (RBMPs) for delivering ‘goodecological and chemical status’. That theEuropean Commission and Member Statesshould focus on preparing these RBMPsand work towards enhancing theopportunities they offer for 'ecologicallysustainable flood management', which canbest be achieved by integrating additionalflood management measures into them.Thus, that there is no need to developparallel planning processes and/oradditional laws to deal specifically withflooding.

3) EU financial mechanisms, such as theCommon Agricultural andRegional/Cohesion Funds, can work to the


5

benefit of ecologically sustainable floodmanagement if they are further integratedand aligned with the WFD.

The paper briefly explores the trends andimpacts of floods in Europe in the recent past,and tries to quantify their direct and indirect(longer term) impacts. It then highlights someof the root causes for such events by analysingfactors such as changes in land-use patterns,river regulation and the effects of climatechange. A third section is dedicated toexplaining IRBM and the benefits it brings toflood management. European case studies ofecologically sustainable flood management inthe context of IRBM are also included in thissection.

Subsequent chapters focus on the EU policyand funding tools that WWF argues arealready available for supporting a shift fromdiscredited ‘traditional’ flood management to anew approach that works with nature toprevent severe flooding, such as occurredacross central Europe in the summer of 2002.

Each chapter contains a ‘Conclusions’ sectionsummarising its main points. An overview ofthe policy recommendations for‘ecologically sustainable flood management’that can be extracted from the paper isgiven in the final chapter.

WWF is well aware of the need to consider other aspects of flood-damage prevention, protection andmitigation when devising flood management policies/strategies. These include, among others, riskanalysis, risk-zone mapping, emergency planning for rescue and relief, and communicating flood riskinformation to human populations. We are also aware that these aspects have to be developed as partof an interactive process with the strictly ‘water management’ components of flood prevention,protection and mitigation.

Similarly, WWF does not underestimate the often devastating social impacts of flooding or the urgentneed for better means of describing, assessing and promoting the economic values of ecologicallysustainable flood management over hard engineering.

Nevertheless, this paper concentrates mostly on the ecological dimension of sustainable floodmanagement, in particular on water retention and other non-structural measures. In this context, ithighlights the existing policy and funding opportunities within the EU that can be used to supportsuch an approach across Europe.

WWF offers this paper as a contribution to the current EU-wide debate on policyand legislation concerning flood-damage prevention, protection and mitigation.


6


7

1. Floods in Europe: Trends andimpacts

Flooding is the leading cause of damage topeople and the environment due to naturalhazards. Globally, flood damage has beenparticularly severe in recent years and it isevident that both the frequency and intensityof floods are increasing4.

A ten-year comparative study of the world’sgreat flood disasters from 1950 to 1998,showed that the number of flood eventsincreased nearly threefold. During the period1950 to 1979, only 7-9 major flood eventstook place per decade. However, between1980 and 1989, and from 1990 to 1998, 20 and34 major flood disasters occurred,respectively5. This greater frequency has beenmatched by an increase in the severity of floodimpacts, both in Europe and globally.

The International Disaster Database (seegraphic below) recorded 238 flood events inEurope between 1975 and 2001, with thelargest concentration in the last decade. Asdiscussed in Chapter 2 of this paper, the directeffects of human interventions in river basins(e.g. floodplain destruction) together with theindirect consequences of global warming havebeen largely responsible for this increase.

Any attempt to assess the human, economic,environmental and cultural losses due toflooding can never come up with whollyaccurate figures. This Chapter provides anoutline based on official statistics, which,though providing only a partial view of thetrue consequences of floods, demonstrates thegravity of the changes to rivers and floodplainsbrought about by our own actions.

4 Loster, T.; 1999; Flood Trends and Global Change.Geoscience Research Group, Munich Reinsurance Company.http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/RMS/june99/papers/loster.pdf5 Loster, T.; 1999; Flood Trends and Global Change.Geoscience Research Group, Munich Reinsurance Company.http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/RMS/june99/papers/loster.pdf

Graph 1- Overview of flood events in Europe 1970– 20016

1.1- Impacts of floods

In general, the deeper the water and the fasterthe flow the greater the damage caused by aflood. The speed at flood onset and theduration of a flooding event are criticallyimportant factors. Flood damage is oftengreatest along river tributaries, where smallstreams can become raging torrents in a veryshort time7. For example, in the case of the2002 flooding of the Elbe, only a smallproportion of losses were actually incurred inthe main river valley itself.

The consequences of flooding can be dividedinto direct and indirect losses. The former canbe defined as losses occurring during orimmediately after the flood event, such as lossof life and damage to property. The latter mayinclude disruption to transport and trade,environmental damage, greater vulnerability ofcertain areas to the next flood event, andreduced public confidence8. Direct losseshave traditionally received more attention 6 World Health Organisation (WHO) information sources:http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/WHO/Progs/CASH/Extreme/20020610_17 Munchener Ruck, Munich Re Group; Annual Review(2003): Natural Catastrophes 2002.http://www.munichre.com/pdf/topics_2002_e.pdf8 Estrela,T; Menendez, M; Dimas, M. et al.; 2001; SustainableWater Use in Europe: Part 3 Extreme Hydrological EventsFloods and Droughts, Environmental issue report No 21,European Environment Agency.


8

because they are easier to quantify. Indeed,existing databases provide information mainlyon the locations and dates of floods, thenumber of people killed or injured and theestimated economic costs. However, it is alsoimportant to highlight indirect losses, as theseusually have longer-term consequences ofconsiderable extent; for example, pollution ofthe environment.

1.1.1- Direct losses

Loss of human life

The most tragic and sudden impact of floodingis always the loss of human lives and homes.Clearly, such losses cannot be expressed inpurely monetary terms. The World HealthOrganisation (WHO) provides information ondirect flood impacts on human life and health.During the ten-year period 1990-2000, about2,000 people died as a result of floodsworldwide and some 400,000 becamehomeless. From January to July 2002, Europesuffered eight major flood events resulting in93 deaths, with 336,000 people affected (note:these figure exclude the floods of August2002). WHO figures indicate that during thecatastrophic floods of August and September2002, more than 100 people were killed innine countries (Albania, Austria, the CzechRepublic, France, Germany, Romania, theRussian Federation, Switzerland andTajikistan)9. The table in section 2.2summarises some of these events.

Economic losses

The most immediate and evident effect offlooding is damage to public infrastructuresuch as roads, electricity and energy supplysystems, buildings, industrial facilities andprivate properties. Everything damaged isevaluated in economic terms and reported bynational governments. Considering theeconomic costs, natural catastrophes have adirect impact on production potential and on

9 WHO information sources:http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/WHO/Progs/CASH/Extreme/20020610_1

gross domestic product (GDP). For example,GDP in Germany declined in 2002 on accountof floods by a little less than €1 billion and, for2003-2004, the investments in repairs andreconstruction as result of flooding will farexceed € 10 billion10.

The European Environment Agency hasreported the direct losses from significantflood events in Europe (France, Italy, TheNetherlands, Romania, and United Kingdom)between 1992 and 1998 at 877 lives and morethan €19 billion11.

The August 2002 floods perhaps provide theclearest example of direct flood impacts.Across Europe, various information resourcesindicated that floods in Austria, the CzechRepublic, Germany, Hungary and the RussianFederation caused massive damage to roads,railways, electricity and water supplies andsewage disposal systems. Extensiveinfrastructure losses included approximately740 km of streets that were destroyed and 180bridges and 94 railway bridges that needed tobe re-built. The floods of 2002 were alsounprecedented because they wrecked manycenturies-old historical and cultural buildings.Prague faced its worst ever flooding, whichconsiderably affected the historical centre witha number of museums, theatres, galleries andmedieval quarters12 flooded out.

According to the Munich Re, the floods of2002 in Europe were among the top ten naturaldisasters in the world in terms of economicand insurance losses. Total economic lossesacross the affected region were estimated at €15.2 billion, while insured losses were € 3.1billion. In spite of the magnitude of the sumsinvolved, this is in one sense also a typical 10 Loster, T.; 1999; Flood Trends and Global Change.Geoscience Research Group, Munich Reinsurance Company.http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/RMS/june99/papers/loster.pdf11 World Health Organisation (WHO) information sources:http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/WHO/Progs/CASH/Extreme/20020610_112 World Health Organisation, Europe; September 2002;Flooding: Health Effects and Preventative Measures.Copenhagen and Rome.http://www.who.dk/document/mediacentre/fs0502e.pdf


9

example, in that the proportion of flood lossesinsured is usually relatively low13.

Table 1- Estimated economic costs in countriesmost affected by floods in summer 200214

Costs of floods in2002 (in Euro)

Economic Insured

Germany € 9.2 billion € 1.8 billionCzech Republic € 3.0 billion € 0.9 billionAustria € 3.0 billion € 0.4 billion

The direct economic costs noted above willalso leave their mark on the affected countries’economies for some time to come. This isparticularly relevant for new EU MemberStates and EU Accession Countries(prospective Member States) whose economiesare still in some form of transition afterdecades of communism.

1.1.2- Indirect (longer term) impacts

Besides the immediate, direct effects of floodssuch as loss of life, livelihoods, property andinfrastructure, much greater attention needs tobe paid to the indirect effects that aretraditionally underestimated when assessingthe consequences of flooding. People maysuffer both physically and psychologically,while wider environmental effects may includepollution. A recent report on flood risksissued by the UK Office of Science andTechnology15 and considered probably themost comprehensive study of its kindanywhere in the world, confirms that thehuman cost of flooding cannot be measured bystatistics alone. However, the consequencesare often significant and long lasting. Dealing

13 Loster, T.; 1999; Flood Trends and Global Change.Geoscience Research Group, Munich Reinsurance Company.http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/RMS/june99/papers/loster.pdf14 Munchener Ruck, Munich Re Group; Annual Review(2003): Natural Catastrophes 2002.http://www.munichre.com/pdf/topics_2002_e.pdf15 Guardian Unlimited; April 22nd, 2004; Global warmingfloods threaten 4m Britons.http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/0,12374,782494,00.html

with them may require substantial financialresources16.

The most obvious negative environmentalimpact of flooding is pollution of soil andwater – especially from sewage, given the veryspecific vulnerability the physicalinfrastructure necessary for sanitation. Inflood-prone areas, preventive measures shouldbe taken to reduce possible adverse effects offloods on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems,i.e. minimising diffuse pollution from surface-water runoff, minimising the amount ofsurface water runoff and infiltration enteringfoul and surface water sewerage systems, andmaintaining recharge to groundwater (subjectto minimising the risk of pollution togroundwater)17.

Pollution during flooding incidents can alsoresult from spillage of stock-piled goods inindustrial areas; from oil and other hazardousproducts stored in residential areas; fromagricultural pesticides and fertilisers; and fromacid water and heavy metals when miningwaste dams fail. The best precautionarymeasure is either to store hazardous substancesoutside areas at risk of flooding, or to elevatestorage areas18.

Recent flooding in Central and Eastern Europedemonstrated vividly how direct damage toindustrial and urban infrastructure, includingsewage and wastewater systems, had indirect 16 Loster, T.; 1999; Flood Trends and Global Change.Geoscience Research Group, Munich Reinsurance Company.http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/RMS/june99/papers/loster.pdf17 As reported in Best practices on flood prevention,protection and mitigation, November 2003, EU WaterDirectors in the framework of the WFD CommonImplementation Strategy. For specific impacts on waterquality deterioration see Estrela T.; Menendez, M.; Dimas, M.et al; 2001; Sustainable Water Use in Europe: Part 3 ExtremeHydrological Events Floods and Droughts, Environmentalissue report No 21, European Environment Agency18 As reported in Best practices on flood prevention,protection and mitigation, November 2003, EU WaterDirectors in the framework of the WFD CommonImplementation strategy. For specific impacts on water qualitydeterioration see Estrela T.; Menendez, M.; Dimas, M. et al;2001; Sustainable Water Use in Europe: Part 3 ExtremeHydrological Events Floods and Droughts, Environmentalissue report No 21, European Environment Agency


10

impacts such as outbreaks of infectiousdisease, pollution, poisoning and post-traumatic stress disorder. Thus, in the summerof 2002, as the floodwaters receded, newthreats began to emerge – disease, illness andexposure to chemical pollution. Peoplereturned home to find decaying garbage anddebris. In the Czech Republic, sewagetreatment plants were forced to shut downbecause of the floodwaters. The Spolanachemical plant in Neratovice, about 20 kmnorth of Prague, leaked poisonous chlorinegas, endangering human health, whilecontaminating the natural environment.Following the floods in Poland in 1997, theeffects on human mental health in thecommunity were reported to include increasesin suicide, alcoholism, and psychological andbehavioural disorders, particularly amongchildren19.

1.2- Recent flood events

The most recent severe flood events acrossEurope include those of March 2004 inSouthern Spain, December 2003 in the Rhoneand Loire rivers, and summer 2002 acrossCentral and Eastern Europe.

Other catastrophic floods during the past tenyears include:

- The Tisza river (a major tributary of theDanube), between 1998-2001

- The Sarno (Italy) in 1998- The 1997 floods of the Odra, Morava and

Danube rivers- The flooding of the Rhine and Meuse

rivers in 1993 and again in 1995.

These occurred because of extensiveurbanisation, loss of vegetation cover, andother human-induced changes to river basins,

19 World Health Organisation, Europe; September 2002;Flooding: Health Effects and Preventative Measures.Copenhagen and Rome.http://www.who.dk/document/mediacentre/fs0502e.pdf

combined with persistent high precipitation20 –all of these factors are discussed in more detailin Chapter 2. The impacts from these andearlier flooding events have all been veryserious, including loss of human life.

A number of European countries suffered fromdamaging flood events during the winter of1993-1994. Across the southeast of the UnitedKingdom, eastern France, Belgium,Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany andPoland, precipitation was more than double thelong-term average. As a result, a number ofrivers overflowed their banks. Ten peopledied in affected countries and costs reachedapproximately € 290 billion. Less than a yearafter this event, in January 1995, the Rhine andMeuse rivers flooded once again due to intenserainfall; however damage was considerablyless in this case. Why was the damage less in1995? Had lessons be learnt and effectiveprotection measures put into place? Or was itmore due to good luck?21.

The 1997 floods of the Odra, Morava, andDanube in Poland, the Czech Republic andGermany were shocking in their severity.These had severe repercussions for humansand the environment. The flooding affected aquarter of Poland, including 1,400 towns and400,000 hectares of agricultural land. Itdestroyed 50,000 homes, 162,000 people wereevacuated and 55 people died. Assessed costsreached €4 billion, including damage to 480bridges, 3,177 km of road and 200 km ofrailway. Ecological consequences for theOdra river included heavy metal and mineraloil pollution carried by the floodwaters, whilenitrogen concentrations increased between sixand eight times their 1996 levels, andphosphate levels rose to over 16 times 1996levels. In the Czech Republic alone, damage

20 World Health Organisation (WHO) information sources:http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/WHO/Progs/CASH/Extreme/20020610_121 World Health Organisation (WHO) information sources:http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/WHO/Progs/CASH/Extreme/20020610_1


11

was estimated at €2.1 billion and 40 peoplelost their lives22.

The flood at Sarno in Italy in 1998 was rapidand devastating. 147 people died when a riverof mud burst through a densely populatedurban area23.

22 World Health Organisation (WHO) information sources:http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/WHO/Progs/CASH/Extreme/20020610_123 World Health Organisation (WHO) information sources:http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/WHO/Progs/CASH/Extreme/20020610_1


12

Table 2- Summary table of selected major European flood events in 200224

Month Country(ies)affected

Impacts

January eastern France180 people affected; 60 families evacuated; several highways andsecondary roads closed

January Belgium600 people affected. Flooding following heavy rain affected more than200 houses

May/June MoldovaOne person killed; 500 people affected; 27 houses destroyed and 139damaged; 44 bridges damaged; 1 dike damaged; 87 wells destroyed;over 4,700 hectares of agricultural land flooded

Junenorthern Italy No people affected. Heavy storms flooded roads, brought down bridges

and raised the water in Venice to record levels

July/August RussianFederation

The city of Novorossiisk was without electricity and more than 3,000people were stranded in the city's train station. The rains also caused a400m2 retaining wall to collapse over the railroad tracks blocking 10trains from leaving the city. In southern Russia, rains in July left morethan a 100 people dead and forced hundreds of thousands to evacuatetheir homes.

August Czech Republic15 people killed; 15 000 people evacuated; 220,000 people affected.An unfavourable meteorological situation beginning in the middle ofJuly resulted in a state of emergency being declared. Several historicalbuildings in Prague were damaged, and damage was caused toagriculture and industry. Two accidents associated with leakage ofchlorine at the Spolana Neratovive chemical plant were tackled withoutaffecting the local inhabitants.

24 World Health Organisation, Europe; September 2002; Flooding Health Effects and Preventative Measures. Copenhagen and Rome.http://www.who.dk/document/mediacentre/fs0502e.pdf

August Austria Flooding along the Danube affected some 60,000 people.

August GermanyThe Elbe region was most badly affected during floods in CentralEurope. Costs of the flooding in parts of Germany estimated at €9.2billion; 21 deaths reported.

August RomaniaFlooding damaged large sections of eastern, southern and western partsof the country. Some 450,000 people affected, particularly in ruralareas, through destruction of homes, infrastructure and crops.

August TajikistanA flash flood struck the village of Dasht in Gorno-BadakhshanAutonomous Province. The overall number of deaths was reported at24

September AlbaniaFloods inundated hundreds of homes and prompted the government todeclare a disaster emergency for four districts. Thousands of acres offarmland were also reportedly flooded, and power to many homes wasalso lost.

September Switzerland Flooding resulted in landslides that killed three people.

September United KingdomHeavy rain caused extensive flooding of London’s underground andtrain system. Several stations were closed and services were curtailed.


13

1.3- Conclusions

Flooding is the most common ‘natural’disaster in Europe and, in addition to loss oflife, can result in major direct and indirectlosses, involving economic, social, ecologicaland cultural impacts. The financial costs mayrun into hundreds of billions of Euro. Asdiscussed above and in Chapter 2, theincidence of flood events is on the rise inEuropean river basins, due in large part tomismanagement of both land and water, andother anthropogenic factors. In many cases,European taxpayers are being forcedunwittingly into paying several times over forflood-related costs. For example, national andEU agriculture policies have providedsubsidies, funded by taxes, for the conversionof active floodplains to farmland. Taxpayersare then also asked to foot the bill for damagefrom multiple flood events, exacerbated by theconversion of floodplains. The sameEuropean citizens are then faced with payingyet again – either for building higher andhigher dikes (which may only provide atemporary and false sense of security), or forcorrecting the original mistake byrehabilitating degraded floodplains.

Statistics from the last decade demonstrate thatflood-damage protection, prevention andmitigation efforts to date have generally beenunsuccessful as the trend is for increasinglyfrequent and more damaging flood events. Itis plainly evident that new approaches andsolutions are needed to guarantee the safety ofpeople, property and goods in an economicallyand ecologically sustainable manner. For thisreason, it is important to take appropriate stepswithout delay.

The policy, technical and administrative(legal/financial) measures required foreffective flood management are well known,and often presented by environmental NGOsand progressive institutions such as theInternational Commission for the Protection ofthe Rhine. The basic building block isIntegrated River Basin Management (IRBM),which is now enshrined in EU legislation

through the Water Framework Directive (seeChapters 3 and 4). Suitable mechanisms andtools already exist at EU level (see Chapter 5).There is no need to ‘reinvent the wheel’. Thebig challenge is to ensure that theopportunities already available forecologically sustainable flood management areused to their full potential by national, regionaland local governments, and other relevantauthorities across the region.


14


15

2. The causes of increasinglysevere flooding

Under natural conditions, river flooding can becaused by continuous heavy precipitation forseveral days or by very intense rainfall over amuch shorter period of time. Rainwaterreaches watercourses both by direct surfaceinflow and via infiltration into soil andgroundwater. During brief but very intenserainfall events, the infiltration capacity of soilmay be exceeded, leading to increased surfacerun-off and a correspondingly rapid rise inriver levels and an elevated risk of flooding.Snowmelt or frozen soil can exacerbate thisrisk25, and the extent and frequency of floodsare generally influenced by a number ofnatural factors including:

• Climatic conditions• Soil and vegetation cover (stable soil and

vegetation cover generally help to reduceflooding)

• Rock type (e.g. permeability) andlandscape form (e.g. presence of steepslopes)

Nevertheless, flooding is increasingly also aconsequence of human mismanagement of theenvironment. This Chapter investigates fourmain factors – all human-caused – thatcontribute to the increasing incidence of severeflooding in Europe, namely:

• Changes in river-basin land use

• River regulation

• Floodplain loss (resulting also from acombination of the above-mentionedfactors is illustrated with examples frommajor European river basins)

• Climate change

25 Estrela T.; Menendez,M.; Dimas, M. et al; 2001;Sustainable Water Use in Europe: Part 3 ExtremeHydrological Events Floods and Droughts, Environmentalissue report No 21, European Environment Agency

2.1- Changes in river-basin land use

Any land-use change within a river basin willhave an effect on the quantity and speed ofwater running off into watercourses.Depending on the type and scale of a givenland-use change, the hydrological effects maybe relatively minor and localised, or they maybe significant at a basin-wide level, withimplications for the frequency and intensity offlood peaks. Some of the most importantcategories of change are summarised below.

Agricultural intensification

The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)has led a post-World War Two drive tointensify agriculture. This has resulted inradical land-use changes throughout allMember States. Marginal land has beenbrought into cultivation, wetlands andwoodland have been drained and cleared, andthere has been a massive expansion in the useof irrigation. One impact of these changes hasbeen to simplify landscape structures, withlarge tracts of land often dedicated to a narrowrange of products (such as cereal cultivationin eastern England, or livestock rearing innorthwest Germany). The simultaneousexpansion and intensification of farming in theEU has had a range of consequences in termsof flood risk. Large areas of floodplain havebeen diked and drained, while the removal ofnatural vegetation cover, compaction by farmmachinery and simplification of landscapeshave tended to increase surface-water flow andsedimentation of watercourses.

Urban development

Many towns and cities are located in or closeto floodplains. Expansion of these settlementsimplies further reduction in floodplain area –either directly through construction onfloodplains themselves, or indirectly, due tothe building of dikes ironically intended toprotect new building from floodwater. Thegrowing numbers of Europeans living in orclose to floodplains also increases pressure forthe development of new transport links (see


16

below). And it is not only urbanisation offloodplain areas that raises the risk of flooding.Urban growth anywhere within a river basinwill also have a tendency to increase both thevolume and rate of runoff, due to the greaterarea of hard, impermeable surfaces thatprevent water from percolating into theground. Storm-water drains frequentlychannel the excess flow directly into streamsand rivers, raising the risk of downstreamflooding unless special measures are taken toslow down the flow. Figures from theEuropean Environment Agency show thatareas with the highest rate of urbanisation arealso those which are more prone to floods, e.g.the Mediterranean and the river Rhine26.

For example, in the Mediterranean, urbandevelopments are quite often placed onfloodplains due to a combination of a high rateof urbanisation, inadequate planning controland enforcement for urban development, andthe visual absence of water courses as aconsequence of severe droughts and over-abstraction.

Transport development

The mobility of Europeans has increaseddramatically in recent decades, in parallel withrapid expansion of transport by air, rail, roadand sea, which has had an important influenceon river-basin land-use. For reasons ofconvenience and relatively low cost, roads andrailways are often constructed in river valleysand lake basins because of their flatness. Asdiscussed above, these are also the placeswhere a significant number of largesettlements are concentrated, adding anotherconstruction imperative. However, as withurbanisation, construction of transportinfrastructure contributes to constriction offloodplains and an increase in the area ofimpermeable (or ‘sealed’) surfaces. Linearfeatures, such as roads and railway lines,which do not have sufficient or adequate

26 Estrela T.; Menendez,M.; Dimas, M. et al; 2001;Sustainable Water Use in Europe: Part 3 ExtremeHydrological Events Floods and Droughts, Environmentalissue report No 21, European Environment Agency

drainage works, may divert flows to otherareas or increase water levels upstream.Hence, the construction of road and railnetworks can intensify floods and theircatastrophic effects27. Airports and shippingfacilities are also frequently built infloodplains, exacerbating the flood-risk factorsalready mentioned. Enlargement of the EUhas brought with it plans for the developmentof new Trans-European Transport Networks(TENs-T), such as the ‘Via Baltica’ linkingGermany, Poland and the Baltic States, whichare liable to lead to further floodplain loss and– in any case – increased surface runoff. Otherrecent proposals (though not specifically partof the TENs-T) include a canal linking theDanube to the Elbe and Odra rivers, and a newcanal through the Ukrainian portion of theDanube Delta.

Deforestation

Forests play an important role within riverbasins by slowing down the flow of surfacewater and increasing percolation into theground. Deforestation and other loss ofvegetation cover in the headwaters of riverbasins increase surface run off28. Localiseddamage to vegetation cover can be crucial towater-retention capacity in the area concerned.Forests are also extremely beneficial inreducing erosion and, therefore, the level ofsediment entering watercourses. Forest covermitigates the impact of small and medium-sized floods, and this is particularly importantin southern Europe29. However, floodplainforests have suffered the largest decline of anyforest type, particularly in southern, centraland Eastern Europe, due to the intensification

27 Estrela T.; Menendez,M.; Dimas, M. et al; 2001;Sustainable Water Use in Europe: Part 3 ExtremeHydrological Events Floods and Droughts, Environmentalissue report No 21, European Environment Agency28 Estrela T.; Menendez,M.; Dimas, M. et al; 2001;Sustainable Water Use in Europe: Part 3 ExtremeHydrological Events Floods and Droughts, Environmentalissue report No 21, European Environment Agency29 Estrela T.; Menendez,M.; Dimas, M. et al; 2001;Sustainable Water Use in Europe: Part 3 ExtremeHydrological Events Floods and Droughts, Environmentalissue report No 21, European Environment Agency


17

of forestry30. Clearing forests has,unfortunately, been a common practice forcenturies in Europe and, consequently,extensive areas of forest are becomingincreasingly rare.

The removal of trees from catchments reducesthe absorption capacity of the land and causeserosion. Water rushes down hillsides, turningwhat otherwise would be fast-flowing streamsinto raging torrents. Flash floods, which haveclaimed the lives of at least two people inRomania, and dozens more in Slovakia and theCzech Republic in recent years, are one result.Extensive logging in Ukrainian and Romanianforests, perched along the rim of the Tisza andDanube river basins, together with meltingsnow and heavy rainfall, have been blamed asone of the chief causes of the flooding in200131. WWF has also pointed out thatdeforestation was a major cause of the floodevents in Hungary in 2002.

2.2- River regulation

River regulation, a widely used term,“comprises of the physical changes thatpeople impose on watercourses, such as landdrainage, water abstraction, flood protection,inter-basin water transfers, reservoirs,wastewater discharge, weirs, dredging,channelization and navigation”32. Suchmodifications to a river’s natural course canhave far-reaching consequences, including anincrease in the risk of flooding upstream ordownstream of the location of a givenintervention. A large proportion of Europeanrivers has been affected by regulation; to takejust one example, it is estimated that 30,000

30 Estrela T.; Menendez,M.; Dimas, M. et al; 2001;Sustainable Water Use in Europe: Part 3 ExtremeHydrological Events Floods and Droughts, Environmentalissue report No 21, European Environment Agency31 Beckmann, A.; 2002; Mopping up after the floods, CERreview.32 Estrela T.; Menendez,M.; Dimas, M. et al; 2001;Sustainable Water Use in Europe: Part 3 ExtremeHydrological Events Floods and Droughts, Environmentalissue report No 21, European Environment Agency

km of Austria’s total river network of 100,000km are regulated.33

Flood protection dikes

Europe has an extensive system of dikes,separating rivers and seas from their naturalfloodplains. Historically, dikes have been builtin order to protect communities from floodingand often to make former wetlands availablefor human use, especially agriculture.Although dikes are one of the oldest forms offlood protection in Europe, ironically, they canalso exacerbate flooding under certaincircumstances. For example, more than 60%of the Netherlands would be inundated if itwere not for that country’s extensive dikesystems34. However, at the same time, thebuilding of dikes constricts river courses,preventing water from entering the floodplainduring times of high flow. Water can only risewithin the dike structure, potentially leading tocatastrophic breakthrough or overtopping ofthe dike walls. The higher the dike is built, thegreater the volume of water held back and thegreater the level of risk to human life andproperty in the event of a dike failure.Following the severe flooding of 1993 and1995, the Dutch government instituted a majorland-use policy reform aimed at making‘Room for the rivers’. This involved a rangeof tough new planning controls combined withphysical measures to increase water storagecapacity through floodplain rehabilitation andremoval of many artificial obstacles.

Dams

Dams are the most common forms of directinfrastructure on rivers. The WorldCommission on Dams states that “large damshave fragmented and transformed the world’srivers, modifying 46% of primary

33 WWF European Living Waters Programme website, Austriacountry profile.http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/freshwater/index.cfm34 Estrela T.; Menendez,M.; Dimas, M. et al; 2001;Sustainable Water Use in Europe: Part 3 ExtremeHydrological Events Floods and Droughts, Environmentalissue report No 21, European Environment Agency


18

watersheds”. Within the EU, around two-thirds of rivers – and virtually all larger rivers– have been dammed. Many dams are builtprimarily for the generation of hydroelectricpower and/or for the storage of water forsupplying urban centres and irrigatedagriculture. However, the construction ofmany dams in Europe has also been wholly orpartly justified in terms of flood-riskreduction, with large storage reservoirsintended to slow down, capture and retain peakriver flows, enabling water levels to becontrolled downstream. Such an approach hasproved simplistic, since dams fragment riversystems, radically altering their hydrologicaland ecological functioning, and potentiallyleading to elevated flood risks. In SouthernEurope, for example, dams are multipurpose –for water provision, flood prevention andenergy production – and water users putpolitical pressure on public authorities toincrease the storage rate of dams in order toenter the summer dry season with dams thatare as full as possible. This notably reducesthe flood mitigation capacity of dams.

Thus, in the first place, the construction ofdams often involves the permanent inundationof floodplains upstream, leading to a loss ofnatural flood retention capacity. Furthermore,unless operated under very strict conditions,releases from dams can actually worsendownstream flooding35. Additionally, due tothe trapping of sediment behind dams,downstream floodplains and deltas are starvedof replenishing material, leading to an increasein erosion and a reduction in the floodmitigation capacity of these areas.

These river regulation works are anothermeans whereby the river continuum isdamaged and rivers are separated from theirfloodplains and side arms.

35 WWF; 2001; Conserving the Source of Life - Backgroundand Focus of WWF’s Living Waters Target-DrivenProgramme.

River channelization

River channelization (or ‘canalisation’),alongside the construction of dams and dikes,has been a common form of flood protection inmany countries. The aim is to transport peakflows as rapidly as possible from A to B,frequently incorporating a bypass of ‘at risk’areas such as towns and villages. In somecases, a completely new artificial channel iscreated. Elsewhere, a natural river course isgreatly simplified by the cutting through ofmeanders and side branches, and the re-profiling of the riverbed by deepening andgrading. Through this process, aheterogeneous meandering river is changedinto a homogeneous, straight channel with amore steeply sloping bed, uniform flowconditions and lower habitat diversity36. Ox-bow lakes, side arms and other floodplainfeatures become isolated from river flows,again contributing to a reduction in space forthe river and an increase in the likelihood ofdamaging floods in the event that banks anddikes are overtopped. The emphasis onmoving water downstream as quickly aspossible is also a high-risk strategy, increasingvulnerability to flood disaster should the floodprevention infrastructure be unable to copewith the flow volume. The more rapiddownstream progression of a flood peak meansthat communities in flood-prone areas mayhave less warning and, therefore, lesspreparation time to implement flood responseand mitigation measures.

Alterations to a river channel and bed in agiven area can have significant effects onnatural erosion and sedimentation processeselsewhere. This leads to raised riverbeds,which push water levels higher (and duringflooding events contribute to the high waterlevels) and the need for even higher levels ofprotection37. 36 Estrela T.; Menendez,M.; Dimas, M. et al; 2001;Sustainable Water Use in Europe: Part 3 ExtremeHydrological Events Floods and Droughts, Environmentalissue report No 21, European Environment Agency37 World Commission on Dams; 2000; Dams andDevelopment: A New Framework for Decision Making- TheReport of the World Commission on Dams. Earthscan, London


19

2.3- Floodplain loss

Floodplains – the periodically inundated low-lying areas adjacent to rivers, lakes and coasts– are nature’s answer to flood control. Theyhave long provided the space that rivers haveneeded during times of high water, both interms of increasing the natural flood storagearea and by acting as natural sponges –absorbing the water and releasing it slowlylater on. Yet this vital role is still overlookedand – as shown above – floodplains and theirassociated wetlands continue to be lost as aresult of human interventions. In turn, notonly is natural flood mitigation diminished,but also changes occur to the naturalhydrological functioning of river basins.Some examples are given below for three largeEuropean rivers. Annex I contains a tablesummarising the causes of floodplaindegradation, together with remarks on thesituation in Europe. Overall, it is estimatedthat only 20% of Europe’s floodplains remainfunctional38.

Example 1: River Rhine

During a period of just 200 years, the Rhineriver lost more than 85% of its floodplain dueto dam and dike construction and other humaninterventions. This resulted in a dramaticdecrease in the river’s natural flood retentionand control functions, as witnessed by theexceptional – and very nearly catastrophic –flood events of 1993 and 1995. In 1998,Ministers from the Rhine river basin countriesadopted a twenty-year ‘Action Plan on FloodDefence’, which recognised thatmismanagement of the river and its basin hadcontributed to elevated flood risks. Restoringand rehabilitating floodplains to increase floodstorage capacity is a key element of this

38 Hygum, B.; 2001; Water and Wetland Index: Assessment of16 European Countries- Phase 1 Results. WWF EuropeanFreshwater Programme available athttp://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_do/freshwater/initiatives/wwi/index.cfm.WWF-Germany’s Auen Institute has also published a vastbibliography on floodplains functions and loss on variousrivers. See:http://www.wwf.de/naturschutz/lebensraeume/fluesse-auen/

Action Plan. Whilst full implementation of theplan is forecast to cost upwards of 12 billionEuro, this figure pales into insignificanceagainst the estimated value of economic assetsin areas currently at risk of flooding, whichstands at some 1,500 billion Euro39.

Example 2: River Elbe

One of the largest rivers in Central Europe, theElbe has suffered from poor water quality andmore than 80% of the original floodplain hasbeen lost due to dike construction40. TheStepenitz river basin, a medium-sized (575km2) tributary basin of the Elbe basin, situatedin the German State of Brandenburg, ischaracterised by a series of complexhydrological and ecological problems. Theseresult mainly from the current intensiveagricultural practices in almost 80% of thetotal basin area and past measures such as land‘improvement’ for agriculture, river-channelstraightening, and drainage of naturalwetlands, all of which resulted in considerableloss of natural flood-retention areas41.

Example 3: River Danube

In 1999, in the framework of the UNDP/GEFDanube Pollution Reduction Programme,WWF carried out an assessment of floodplainloss along the Danube and five of its majortributaries (the Morava, Drava, Sava, Tiszaand Prut rivers). This showed a decline fromthe original (‘historical’) floodplain area of41,600 km2 to approximately 7,850 km2 – representing an overall loss in excess of

39 Source: http://www.iksr.org/icpr.40 Economic valuation of measures towards sustainabledevelopment in the Elbe River Basin. Research project withinthe programme Elbe-Ecology funded by BundesministeriumfürBildung und Forschung, Germany (Ministry of Education& Research E&R). ESEE, Newsletter of the European Societyfor Ecological Economics, 11/200041 The Elbe-Ecology project funded by BundesministeriumfürBildung und Forschung, Germany (Ministry of Education& Research E&R. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/cp/ragtime/hydro/projects/elbe-ecology/elbe-ecology.html#elbe-ecology


20

80%42. Historical analyses of changes of thespatial structure in lower part of the Moravariver basin – a sub-basin of the Danube – showdrastic land structural changes (see graphicbelow). The ratio of 2:1 natural versus man-made areas prior to river regulation, has beenreversed over the last 50 years so that there arenow twice as many man-made areas as naturalones. The area of grassland, which covered8,000 ha during the 18th and 19th centuries, haddecreased to 1,913 ha (12% of the total area)by 1999.43

Graph 2- Development of main landscapestructures in lower part of the Morava river basinsince the 18th

century44

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1783 1898 1920 1999

ha

lúky / grasslands polia / fieldslesy / woodlands obce / settlements

2.4- Climate change

Many flood events have been associated withunusually high precipitation. Such exceptionalrainfall events may already be a result ofglobal warming and are certainly indicative ofthe types of effects that many parts of the

42 WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme and WWF-GermanyAuen Institute; 1999; Evaluation of Wetlands and FloodplainAreas in the Danube River Basin. Final Report. WWFDanube-Carpathian Programme, Vienna.43 Seffer, J.& Stanova, V. (eds.); 1999; Morava RiverFloodplain Meadows – Importance, Restoration andManagement. DAPHNE – Centre for Applied Ecology,Bratislava44 Seffer, J.& Stanova, V. (eds.); 1999; Morava RiverFloodplain Meadows – Importance, Restoration andManagement. DAPHNE – Centre for Applied Ecology,Bratislava

world will be seeing more frequently as ourclimate continues to change. Global warmingis caused by an increase in greenhouse gases(such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrousoxides) resulting from human activities,primarily the burning of fossil fuels. Thesegases act as a giant blanket, trapping heatenergy in the earth’s atmosphere, therebyprogressively warming the planet. Accordingto the European Environment Agency“climate change alters precipitation patternsresulting in changes in the distribution,intensity and duration of extreme rainfallevents and a higher frequency of heavyprecipitation.”45. Under natural conditions,river basins are able to cope with higher thannormal amounts of rainfall, but the combinedimpact of human and climate change patterns,means that they can no longer cope. Forexample, during the floods of summer 2002,Germany’s weather service reported that 317litres of rain had fallen in 24 hours at amonitoring station in hills near the Czechborder – the highest reading since recordsbegan in 187046.

Current situation

Over the past 130 years the mean temperatureof the earth has risen about 0.6 o C47; whereasaverage land temperatures increased by 1.2o Csince about 100 years48. Further research hasrevealed that the average global temperature isrising 0.2oC per decade49. At first, suchfigures may not seem significant, but carefulinvestigation reveals more clearly the linkbetween human-induced temperature increasesand flooding. Over the last 120 years, the ten

45 Estrela T.; Menendez,M.; Dimas, M. et al; 2001;Sustainable Water Use in Europe: Part 3 ExtremeHydrological Events Floods and Droughts, Environmentalissue report No 21, European Environment Agency46 Guardian International; August 14th, 2002; Tides of miseryFlood Europe.http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,774124,00.html47 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ThirdAssessment Report, 200148 DEFRA & Hadley Centre, UK, 2003, Climate Change –Observations and Predictions49 P. Vellinga and W.J van Verseveld; 2000; Climate Changeand Extreme Weather Events, University of Amsterdam-Institute for Environmental Studies and WWF


21

warmest years have all occurred since 1987,with nine of these occurring after 199050. Thefour warmest years were all very recent - in1998, 2001, 2002 and 200351.

In recent decades, most of Europe hasexperienced temperature increases larger thanthe global average, with enhancedprecipitation in the northern part of the regionand reductions in the south. Analysis indicatesthat rainstorm intensity has increased, andareas where increased amounts of precipitationhave been observed also show increased heavyprecipitation events52.

For example, in February 2004, the ScottishExecutive Environment Group produced areport reviewing the levels of protectionoffered by flood prevention schemes inrelation to predicted climate change scenarios.The report states that climate change willaffect the weather patterns differently in theeast of Scotland than in the west. It alsoargues that any flood engineering works wouldneed to be raised by between 5 cm and 18 cmif the same level of protection as provided in1990 was to be re-established in 205053.

Future scenarios

The average global temperature is expected torise between 1.4 and 5.8 oC from 1990 to210054. In general terms, an increase intemperature will lead to higher evaporationand more moisture in the air. When the airbecomes saturated, precipitation forms.However, increasing global temperatures donot necessarily mean more frequentprecipitation events, but rather an increase in

50 World Meteorology Organisation 2002, WMO Statement onthe Status of the Global Climate in 200251 DEFRA & Hadley Centre, UK, 2003, Climate Change –Observations and Predictions52 Guardian International; August 14th, 2002; Tides of miseryFlood Europe.http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,774124,00.html53 UK CIP02 Update, 2003; Climate Change: Review of levelsof protection offered by flood prevention schemes54 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ThirdAssessment Report, 2001

the amount of precipitation per event55.Scientific research demonstrates thatprecipitation patterns will continue to shifttowards heavier rainstorms, which will beaccompanied by an increase in the number ofdry days. All scientific models for Europepredict increased precipitation during thewinter, with Northern Europe also predicted tobecome wetter during the summer56.Furthermore, climate change may also lead tolong-term changes in vegetation cover andstructure, with possible knock-on effects onsoil properties, e.g. water retention capacity,surface-water run off57, and hence the volumeof water entering rivers.

Mountain ranges – in particular the Alps,Carpathians, Balkans and Fennoscandianmountains – are the source of most ofEurope’s major rivers, with the timing andamount of flow in rivers such as the Rhine, theRhone, and the Danube being stronglydependent on the seasonal accumulation andmelting of snow and, during the summer andearly autumn, on meltwater from mountainglaciers. There is increasing evidence (e.g. inthe Swiss Alps) that rising temperatures arealready leading to reduced snow and ice coverand increased rainfall, which could lead tolong-term changes in the hydrological regimeof mountain streams and rivers. Such changeswould especially affect downstream areasalong rivers such as the Rhine and the Danube,where river management, settlement patternsand land use are adapted to a long-term patternof regular seasonal variations in flow. As theextensive flooding in Poland, Germany, andthe Czech Republic in 1997 and 2002 havedemonstrated, many flood-defence systemshave a limited capacity to cope with irregularflows and any changes in hydrological regimescould have major impacts in floodplain 55 Guardian International; August 14th, 2002; Tides of miseryFlood Europe.http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,774124,00.html56 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ThirdAssessment Report, 200157 World Commission on Dams; 2000; Dams andDevelopment: A New Framework for Decision Making - TheReport of the World Commission on Dams. Earthscan,London.


22

areas58. Following the floods of 2002, theGerman Environment Minister said: “If wedon't want this development to get worse, thenwe must continue with the consistent reductionof environmentally harmful greenhousegases.”59 The evidence is clear: climate changeand the resulting effects upon air temperature,and in turn precipitation, are very likely onecause of recent floods in Europe.

In Mediterranean countries, extreme floodevents are expected to occur in combinationwith extreme drought events. The negativesynergies thus generated will severely affectthe health of ecosystems and the services theyprovide for all of us, as well as human landand water uses.

2.5- Conclusions

Europeans currently face a turning point in theway in which land and water, includingfloodplains – and hence flooding – aremanaged. Recent studies have shown that our‘natural sponges’ for storing water duringflooding episodes are disappearing. Thus, forexample, approximately 80% of Europe’sfloodplains have been lost; almost three-quarters of river stretches analysed have poorecological quality; and the river systems ofover half of the countries in Europe areseverely fragmented60. This is due to themismanagement of various human activities,including agriculture, forestry, transport,urbanisation, industrial development, miningand quarrying, and tourism.

When viewed in the context of increasinglyextreme weather events due to globalwarming, statistics such as these take on aspecial significance. There is no question that 58 WWF Poland, Flood damages will increase in the future, ifwe do not reserve areas prepared for flooding - warned WWF.Press release59 Guardian International; August 14th, 2002; Tides of miseryFlood Europe.http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,774124,00.html60 Hygum, B.; 2001; Water and Wetland Index: Assessment of16 European Countries- Phase 1 Results. WWF EuropeanFreshwater Programme

these factors have led to incidents of severeflooding in Europe becoming more frequentand the impacts of such events becoming evermore costly and disruptive. In preparingpolicy and practical responses, it will beessential for planners and decision-makers tokeep in mind that:

• Flooding is a natural – and in many waysbeneficial – process that will continue tooccur;

• Increasingly negative impacts of floodingon human life, property and livelihoods arelargely a consequence of our own actions;

• We therefore need to address the root-causes of damaging floods and not just thesymptoms;

• In managing flood risk, governments needto work with nature and not against it.

These points must be understood – and actedon – at all levels (international/EU, national,regional and local) throughout the Europeanregion if further devastating and unnecessarylosses are to be avoided in the future.


23

3. Integrated River BasinManagement and ecologicallysustainable flood management

3.1- What is Integrated River BasinManagement?

Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM)is now widely recognised as the mostappropriate approach for delivering sustainableuse of the world’s limited freshwaterresources. It has been endorsed byinternational organisations, such as the GlobalWater Partnership and the ‘Ramsar’Convention on Wetlands, and is enshrined inthe EU’s Water Framework Directive.

“IRBM is the process of coordinatingconservation, management, development anduse of water, land and related resourcesacross sectors within a given river basin, inorder to maximise the economic and socialbenefits derived from water resources in anequitable manner while maintaining and,where necessary, restoring freshwaterecosystems” (based on a definition adopted bythe Global Water Partnership).

In short, IRBM provides a basin-wideframework for making strategic decisionsabout water management – including floodmanagement – that are economically, sociallyand environmentally sustainable.

IRBM rests on the principle that naturallyfunctioning river basin ecosystems, includingwetlands and groundwater, are the source offreshwater on which people everywheredepend. Therefore, management of riverbasins must include maintenance of ecosystemfunctioning as a paramount goal. IRBM alsoassumes that the needs and expectations of all‘water stakeholders’ must be assessed jointlyat a basin-wide level, and that final decisionshave to be based on the best possibleinformation.

3.1.1- IRBM: Why do we need it and how todo it?

The interconnectedness of different water andland uses within a river basin, and theirimpacts on one another, are welldocumented61. Most visibly, changes in landuses in upstream areas, such as dam building,urban development or cultivation of previouslyun-farmed land, can lead to a host ofinterrelated impacts downstream. These mightbe increased pollution loads, greater soilerosion, and limited flood storage capacity dueto development of former floodplains.However, while most European river basinsare subject to such multiple impacts, few asyet enjoy the integrated basin-wide approachto planning and management that is required toresolve them.

The IRBM approach recognises that there aremany different tools for managing freshwaterresources. These may include the designationof protected areas to safeguard headwaters andwetlands that contribute to maintaining waterquality and quantity; forestry practices that arecompatible with conservation of freshwaterresources; sustainable agricultural practicesthat are adapted to local conditions, use lesswater and are less dependent on chemicalinputs; the use of more efficient technologiesby water-intensive industries; dam andreservoir management that mimics naturalflow regimes; innovations in the design ofshipping so that fewer alterations to naturalriver channels are required for commercialnavigation; and restoration techniques to re-establish valuable natural functions in heavilydegraded freshwater systems.

Nevertheless, none of these tools will beeffective if used in isolation. Indeed, if onesolution is pursued while other issues orsectors are ignored, the effects are at beststrictly localised and temporary, and at worst 61 WWF Living Waters Programme, 2003, Managing riverswisely: Lessons from WWF’s work for integrated river basinmanagement available athttp://www.panda.org/downloads/freshwater/managingriversintroeng.pdf


24

ultimately futile. IRBM provides a structurewithin which the full range of tools andapproaches can come into play, with multiplesectors working together, rather than at cross-purposes, in order to manage and conservefreshwater resources sustainably andequitably.

3.1.2- WWF’s seven guiding principles foreffective IRBM

WWF has established a set of seven keyelements or ‘guiding principles’ that should bein place for an IRBM initiative to succeed62.These are:

• A long-term vision for the river basin,agreed to by all the major stakeholders

• A solid foundation of knowledge of theriver basin and the natural and socio-economic forces that influence it

• Integration of policies, decisions andcosts across sectoral interests such asindustry, agriculture, urban development,navigation, fisheries management andconservation

• Strategic decision-making made at theriver basin scale, which guides actions atsub-basin or local levels

• Effective timing, taking advantage ofopportunities as they arise while workingwithin a strategic framework

• Active participation by all relevantstakeholders in well-informed andtransparent planning and decision-making

• Adequate investment by governments, theprivate sector, and civil society in capacityfor river basin planning and participationprocesses

3.1.3- The EU Water Framework Directiveand IRBM

For decades, interest groups and academiahave demanded that environmental policiesand objectives are oriented towards the

62 WWF Living Waters Programme, 2000, Managing waterwisely: Promoting sustainable development trough integratedriver basin management available athttp://www.panda.org/downloads/freshwater/managingwaterwiselyeng2.pdf

environment’s ‘carrying capacity’, the properand long-term functioning of ecosystems andmaintenance of biodiversity. In the case ofwater, this should be achieved via IntegratedRiver Basin Management (IRBM). Decision-makers finally recognised this demand andhave enshrined it in EU law via the WFD.

The WFD is the implementation tool forIRBM in the EU because it makes integratedriver basin planning and managementcompulsory for Member States as well as forAccession Countries (from the date of theiraccession to the EU). Governments arerequired to establish River Basin Districts asthe fundamental unit for applying andcoordinating the Directive’s provisions at bothnational and transboundary levels, and toprepare River Basin Management Plans fordelivering ‘good status’ in all European waterswithin a 15-year time frame. A stated goal ofthe Directive is to contribute to mitigate theeffects of floods, though precautionary floodprotection measures are not specificallyprescribed. In any event, the Directiverequires the protection, restoration andenhancement of wetlands, which is key for thedevelopment of ecologically sustainable floodmanagement measures.

References throughout this paper, but inparticular in Chapter 4, explain why the WFDis therefore the right tool for implementingecologically sustainable flood management inEurope and why there is no need to developparallel planning processes63 and/or additionallegislation to deal with flooding.

3.2- Benefits of an IRBM approach toflood management

In June 2003 the European Conference ofMinisters responsible for Physical Planningrecognised that “The tragic consequences ofthe floods which devastated several parts ofEurope in 2002 made it necessary to give 63 As seems to be suggested by the European Commissionservices developing the Communication and ActionProgramme on “Flood prevention, protection and mitigation”


25

priority to the question of floods within theactivities of the European Conference ofMinisters responsible for Physical Planning”.They also “stressed the fact that technicalmeasures do not grant complete safety. Ifflood risk is therefore inevitable it can bemanaged and reduced. It has been widelyagreed that flood prevention requires anintegrated approach where not only the areasdirectly affected by floods but also the entireriver basins must be considered.”64

WWF firmly believes that a truly integratedapproach to river basin management would inmany cases prevent the accumulation ofseparate peak water flows coming together toconstitute a ‘flood’. Once a flood occurs,however, there are two main ways ofmanaging the water: move it, or store it. Bothresponses have parallels in natural systems,depending on local conditions (e.g.floodwaters flow quickly through narrowgorges, but spread out over floodplains). Asriver basins become more and more urbanisedand the imperative to protect humancommunities from flood risk increases, thetraditional approach has been to concentrate onmoving the water through and away frominhabited areas as quickly as possible. Toooften the ‘bigger picture’ has not beenexamined, and defending one area has led toincreased flooding elsewhere.

In the graphic below, community Aexperiences natural flooding, whereascommunity B does not. However, whentraditional flood ‘defences’ (e.g. floodwaterretention dikes) are provided for communityA, the hydrograph shows that the flood peak atcommunity B is increased and occurs morequickly than before. Effective floodmanagement must look at the ‘bigger picture’and aim to ensure that where increasedflooding does occur, it happens in areas

64 Guiding Principles for Sustainable Spatial Development ofthe European Continent (Recommendation Rec (2002) 1 of theCommittee of Ministers of the Council of Europe) available athttp://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Co-operation/Environment/CEMAT/List_of_Conferences/CEMAT13_report.asp#P656_78009

specifically designated and prepared forflooding.

Indeed, experience has shown that effectivemeasures for flood prevention and protectionhave to be taken at the river basin level, so thatthe interaction and cumulative effects ofindividual measures implemented alongwatercourses can be taken into account.Therefore, it is essential that watermanagement systems, improved floodforecasting, flood defence measures andemergency response measures are allcoordinated and planned at a river basin level– cutting across regional boundaries andcountry borders. This should be done incooperation with the relevant organisations inthe fields of hydrology and meteorology,mitigation planning, river control, civilprotection and crisis management.

In this context, WWF strongly believes thatthe WFD has a crucial role to play. The River


26

Basin Management Plans (RBMP) that are tobe set up according to the Directive by 2009,and which define the measures necessary forachieving the ‘good ecological and chemicalstatus’ objectives by 2015, should include anywater and water-management related measuresfor flood-damage protection, prevention andmitigation developed by River BasinAuthorities and stakeholders (see Chapter 4).Article 13.5 of the Directive, allowing thegeneral RBMP to be supplemented by anotherplan/programme dealing in more detail with aspecific water issue, supports this.Furthermore, this would prevent the need forduplicating human resources for thedevelopment of a separate river basin planningprocess for flood management65, which wouldanyway need to be integrated into the RBMPto prevent jeopardising the WFD objective of‘good ecological and chemical status’. Anymeasures or mechanisms developed purely formanaging flood risk, and that could have anegative effect on the achievement of thisobjective, must be subject to WFDrequirements, including derogation tests.

3.2.1- Measures for ecologically sustainableflood management in river basinplanning

Traditionally flood-damage prevention andprotection has relied on ‘structural’ measures,such as building dikes, dams andembankments. As shown elsewhere in thispaper, this approach alone does not work.However, some sort of ‘structural’ approach toflood management is still needed.

Examples of useful structural measures are:

• Building/construction codes and legislationto relocate houses and other infrastructureaway from flood-prone areas;

• Planning of appropriate land-use types andpractices;

• Adjusted planning and design for physicalflood-control structures (and for mitigation

65 As seems to be suggested by the European Commissionservices developing the Communication and ActionProgramme on Flood prevention, protection and mitigation

of their adverse effects on the environmentand others).

As we have learnt more about flooding, wehave come to realise that other types ofmeasures and approaches are needed to ensureeffectiveness and sustainability of floodmanagement, by using complementarypreventive measures, for example:

• Making an inventory of flood-prone areas• Implementing early-warning systems• Communicating the flood risk accurately

and quickly to stakeholders• Preparing communities to respond

effectively to flood events

Any measures will only deliver long-termbenefits when their planning andimplementation are integrated at the correctscale, i.e. river basin level. This requiresinterdisciplinary cooperation, especially:

• At all levels of government (national,regional, local)

• Across all sectoral policies (especiallyenvironmental protection, physicalplanning, land-use planning, agriculture,transport and urban development)

• During all phases of risk management: riskassessment, mitigation planning andimplementation of measures

• With all concerned stakeholders (e.g.farmers, industries, local communities,NGOs)

In addition to structural and preventivemeasures, ‘non-structural measures’ arecrucial for ensuring a sustainable approach toflood-damage protection, prevention andmitigation at the river basin level. ‘Non-structural’ measures include giving back roomto rivers so they can flood naturally, andcreating more natural retention areas to absorbthe water.

Indeed, every cubic metre of water that doesnot drain immediately into the closest waterbody increases the risk of flooding, inparticular downstream. Water storage by


27

vegetation, soil, aquifers and wetlandstherefore has an important flood mitigationeffect, particularly for small to medium-scalefloods. A large natural storage capacityfavours slow rises in water levels, leading tocomparatively minor flooding. Erosion andsediment loads are also reduced. Maximisingnatural water retention should, therefore, be akey element of river basin planning forecologically sustainable flood management.Specific options for achieving this include:

• Implementing better land-use planning andbetter land management practices: preventrapid run-off both in rural and urban areas(e.g. by limiting the expansion of ‘sealed’– concrete or tarmac – surfaces), andprevent construction in floodplains.Consider all floodplain and wetlanddrainage proposals as being contrary to theobjective of ecologically sustainable floodmanagement. Avoid excessive soilcompaction and erosion, employ onlycontour tillage, leave vegetated strips alongwatercourses, convert arable land topasture, etc.

• Maximising natural vegetation cover:maintain and, where possible, restore theexisting vegetation and forest cover,particularly in mountainous areas, riparianwoodland and floodplain meadows.

• Restoring floodplains and wetlands66:maintain, protect effectively and, wherepossible, restore degraded wetlands andfloodplains, including river meanders,oxbows, and – in particular – reconnectrivers with their floodplains; for example,by relocating dikes, opening natural levees.Reduce the intensity of landscape drainage,reverse the straightening of watercoursesand bank reinforcement – make room forthe river to flow naturally. This is as truein upland or ‘headwater’ catchments as it

66 This measure is already part of some Europeangovernments’ plans to tackle floods (e.g. Czech Republic,France, Germany and The Netherlands) and should be takenup as a key action by others, given that it is central toecologically sustainable flood management

is for downstream lowlands. By creatingmore space for rivers and water, floodplainand wetland restoration is a majorcontribution to flood prevention andprotection. It helps to decrease the leveland intensity of peak flows while restoringecosystems, increasing biodiversity, andhelping to improve water quantity andquality as well as groundwater discharge.

• Creating low-risk flood storage areas: useformer floodplains to create designatedfloodwater storage zones with extensivegrassland and/or alluvial forest cover. Formajor cities, a specific risk-assessmentstudy might be needed for establishing alevel of protection for sewage and otherwastewater systems that usesenvironmentally appropriate and cost-effective methods

• Developing strong legislation: in caseincentive-led voluntary approaches toflood-risk reduction are unsuccessful,develop and/or strengthen a programme ofmeasures that is backed by rigorous andenforceable legal tools.

3.2.3- Strategic planning of floodmanagement at the river basin level

All types of measures for flood (damage)prevention and protection – as highlightedabove – should be taken into account in thepreparation of a strategy covering the wholeriver basin. This should have a:

• Long-term strategic approach. Drawinglong-term conclusions (perhaps applying atime scale of several decades) concerningthe actions required in terms of watermanagement, land-use planning policy,climate change and finance.

• Interdisciplinary approach. Developing anintegrated approach covering all relevantaspects of water management, physicalplanning, land use, agriculture, transportand urban development, natureconservation, at all levels (national,


28

regional and local). Defining andallocating responsibilities ofgovernments/local administrations,businesses, community groups andindividuals.

• Safety consideration. The strategy must bepro-active and preventative as well asallow for early warning, for providing aidthe case of a flooding emergency, and forlearning the lessons from itsimplementation.

Such a strategy would help to ensurecontinuity and integration of river basinplanning, and can be used to set out principlesfor organising and coordinating activities,including financial investment.

It is WWF’s strong belief that the WFD RiverBasin Management Plans (RBMPs) are themost suitable vehicle for implementing such astrategic approach. Therefore, RBMPs shouldinclude the water management and water-management related measures for flood(damage), protection, prevention andmitigation developed by the designated RiverBasin Authorities and all other stakeholders.WWF believes equally strongly that thereshould not be separate river basin managementplanning processes for flood management67

(see also Chapter 4). This is supported byArticle 13.5 of the Directive, which allows formore detailed planning on specific waterissues (in this case, flood damage) to beincluded as a supplement to general RBMPs.The alternative is that the benefits of IRBM forflood management will probably be lost in theconfusion of two different sets of watermanagement measures being developed andimplemented separately at river-basin level.

3.2.4- International and transboundarycooperation for flood management

In the case of international river basins,transboundary cooperation is a prerequisite for 67 As seems to be suggested by the European Commissionservices developing the Communication and ActionProgramme on Flood prevention, protection and mitigation

effective river basin management. In terms offlooding, this might include inter alia jointpreparation of risk analyses and floodforecasts, and improved coordination ofemergency assistance provision and preventivemeasures. Existing river basin organisationsin Europe, such as the InternationalCommissions for the Danube and RhineRivers, have already built up a wealth ofexperience in preparation of transboundarystrategies and should be, as far as possible, theimplementation bodies for these strategies,including flood protection, prevention andmitigation measures.

The WFD River Basin Management Plans(RBMPs) are also the right vehicle forimplementing transboundary cooperationfor flood protection, prevention and mitigationmeasures. Indeed, virtue of Article 13, theWFD requires the setting up of InternationalRiver Basin Districts and of singleInternational River Basin Management Plans.This challenge has already been taken up byInternational Commissions, such as that for theprotection of the Danube River (ICPDR).Thus, the Danube River Basin countries haveendeavoured to produce a single internationalRBMP, which is coordinated by the ICPDRacting as the international platform forcooperation.

3.2.5- Financial instruments for IRBM

While national and regional funding sourceswill normally bear the largest part of the costsof integrated river basin management, thereare several EU mechanisms that can beharnessed for additional support. Theseinclude the Common Agricultural Policy(CAP), PHARE Cross Border Co-operation,INTERREG, European Regional DevelopmentFund, Special Action Programme forAgriculture and Rural Development(SAPARD), EU Solidarity Fund, LIFE and theStructural Funds (as follows from the revisedIndicative Guidelines published in 2003). Forfurther details see Chapter 5.


29

Note that flood insurance can both reduce thefinancial risk for individuals, communities andcompanies and increase the level of riskawareness. Yet according to the insuranceindustry, in spite of these apparent advantages,cover for flooding is not yet widely taken up68.The establishment of a national, regional orriver basin ‘flood fund’ might also beconsidered as a means of supporting flood-prevention measures in an IRBM context.

3.3- Case studies of ecologicallysustainable flood management

Ecologically sustainable flood management, incontrast to traditional hard engineering, aimsto tackle flooding by considering a whole riverbasin as a complex system and working withnature rather than against it. Only by lookingat the natural functioning of catchments as awhole – rather than at disconnected hot spots –can reductions be achieved in overall pressureson the river basin from infrastructure,settlements, farming, or climate change. Forexample, preserving or re-instating naturalfloodplains upstream by setting back dikes canhelp absorb floodwater before it reaches urbanareas.

The following case studies illustrateapproaches to river basin management fromdifferent parts of Europe, which either take –or could take – this direction in order to tacklethe causes of flooding. The first exampledemonstrates concrete achievements in termsof applying ecologically sustainable floodmanagement measures in an IRBM context tosecure reductions in flood risk. The other twoassess existing approaches and put forwardalternative solutions, also using ecologicallysustainable flood management measures in anIRBM context, to achieve such reductions

68 Swiss Reinsurance Company (Swiss Re); 1998 Floods – aninsurable risk?, 51pp. Report available athttp://www.swissre.com

Case study I: Morava river, Slovakia69

Characteristics of the river

The Morava is a middle-European river basinand one of the Danube’s largest tributaries,with a length of 328 km. The lower reaches ofthe river form the border between Slovakiaand Austria, while its middle section separatesSlovakia and the Czech Republic. Dischargenormally reaches a maximum in March andApril due to mountain snowmelt, thoughfloods may also occur due to heavy summerrainfall and high flows in the Danube.

Biodiversity values

The Morava supports diverse well-developedwetlands – mostly wet grasslands – withfragments of original floodplain forestoccurring in protected areas. Due to its highnatural values, the lower Morava river wasdesignated as a Ramsar site in 1993.

Human interventions

The first river regulation measures wereimplemented by the beginning of the 19th

century. These projects were mostlyconcerned with enabling navigation via theMorava river to the Danube. However, mostflood protection measures were implementedfrom 1935 onwards. Since then, more than 90% of the river’s course has been regulatedthrough dike construction, canalisation, andremoval of all large meanders. Significantlyaltered hydrological conditions on the upperpart of the Morava river, such as straighteningof the river and construction of reservoirs inthe Dyje river basin (the Morava’s maintributary), have influenced the dischargeregime in the lower Morava.The course of the lower Morava wasartificially shortened from 97 km to 79 km and23 meanders were cut through and isolatedfrom the main river bed, supposedly toenhance flood protection. However, as a result 69 Information provided by Jan Sĕffer, DAPHNE – Center forApplied Ecology, Bratislava, Slovakia. Phone +421-2-65412162, e-mail: [email protected]


30

of this regulation, the floodplain was reducedto just 24% of its former area. Secondarycauses of wetland loss include conversion offloodplain meadows to arable land byploughing of 493 ha of meadow between the1960s and 1980s. Nevertheless, the Moravaretains a floodplain more than 3 km widealong its lower reaches, an exceptional featurein Central Europe, due largely to the fact thatthis was part of the ‘iron curtain’ border zoneduring the Cold War.

The role of the Morava floodplains inpreventing flood damage

In early July 1997, exceptionally heavyrainfall occurred in Central Europe andaffected the upper part of the Morava river.This situation resulted in the worst-everrecorded flooding of the Czech region ofMoravia, with damage to buildings, roads,bridges, railway lines and water and seweragenetworks. Inundated areas were typically upto 5 km wide (13 km in extreme cases) and upto 2.5 m deep. However, in the lower Morava,the floodplains were – just – sufficient toprotect human life and property.

During the regionally catastrophic flooding ofsummer 2002, the lower 30 km of the Moravabecame a 5,000 ha lake. This was thanks tothe retention capacity of the Moravafloodplains, which is more than 100 million m3

on the Slovak side alone (this compares withthe volume of Gabcikovo – the largest dam inCentral and Eastern Europe – which is ‘only’35 million m3). The floodplain and itswetlands were able to absorb surges of Danubefloodwater, thus slowing down the flood peak.The captured water was then slowly released.Compared with the situation in Austria andGermany, the consequences of the Danubefloods were minimal, with only a few housesflooded at the confluence of the Morava andthe Danube.

Common approach for river basin restoration

As mentioned earlier, significant floodplainareas remained along the Morava in spite of

the river regulation works of the 19th and 20th

centuries. Moreover, during the last decade,water management authorities, environmentalnon-governmental organisations (NGOs),stakeholders and state nature conservationauthorities have been working together indifferent parts of the basin to maintain, restoreand enhance the river’s natural functions. Thiscooperation has resulted in a number ofprojects that are focused on re-openingmeanders, restoring floodplains, improvingforest management and increasing publicawareness of floodplain values. Projectimplementation is based on strongparticipation of all local stakeholders andmutual agreement with land owners/users. Allmeasures are in line with the principles ofecologically sustainable flood managementcombined with nature conservation interests.This approach is also among the mainprinciples for the trilateral management planfor the lower part of the Morava river that isnow being prepared by the ministries ofenvironment from all three countries, withassistance from NGOs and individual experts.

Reopening of meanders

Water management bodies, working with theassistance of nature conservation authoritiesand NGOs, have so far removed structuralregulation of the river bed, limited gravelmining, and reopened four meanders on theSlovakian side of the channel. However, thevaried success of the measures implementedfor each meander clearly indicates thecomplexity of the river system dynamics, anddemonstrates that successful large-scalerestoration throughout the basin will requiremuch more detailed knowledge.

Restoration of meadows

To improve water quality in the Morava riverand increase the retention capacity offloodplains, various restoration projects andprogrammes (including agri-environmentalschemes) are being implemented in both theSlovakian and Austrian parts of the basin.These have focused on restoration and


31

management of more than 1,000 ha offloodplain meadows, including the successfulconversion of 140 ha of arable or abandonedland to species-rich meadows on the Slovakianside and 74 ha on the Austrian side of theriver.

In this context, a cost-benefit analysis of theenvironmental services provided byfloodplains in Slovakia, taking into accountthe benefits from grassland managementcompared to arable land, and estimations oftheir value as a nitrogen sink was carried out70.

This study, based on economic data providedby farmers and scientific information on theremoval of nitrogen by wetlands, came up withvery encouraging results. The cumulative netbenefit to society from environmental servicesprovided by the Morava floodplain wetlands(see Graph 3) was calculated to be in the rangeof 300 to 489 Euro/ha/year. Other economicvaluation studies for floodplains in the Danubebasin, including forest, grassland and wetlandhabitats, have produced similar results ofaround 383 Euro/ha/year71.

Financing

The restoration activities have been supportedby national, EU and international funding,invested mainly in hydrological and natureconservation research, implementation andmonitoring of restoration measures on theground, and public awareness activities. Forexample, a 1993-1997 UNDP/GlobalEnvironmental Facility project enabledecosystem restoration techniques to bedeveloped and refined at a series ofdemonstration sites. These projects have beenfollowed up by a number of initiativesfocusing on a sustainable future for thefloodplains.

70 Sĕffer, J. & Stanová V. (eds), 1999, Aluviálne lúli riekiMoravy – význam, obnova a manazment. DAPHNE – Centrefor Applied Ecology, Bratislava71 Andréasson-Gren, I-M. & Groth, K-H.; 1995; EconomicEvaluation of Danube Floodplains. Gland, Switzerland: WWFInternational

Lessons learnt

• The relatively large extent of the Moravariver’s remaining floodplains contributedsignificantly to reducing the Danube floodwave and mitigating the impact of floodevents in August 2002

• The success of ecologically sustainableflood management based on basin-wideriver restoration is dependent on theinvolvement of all relevant sectors (e.g.agriculture, forestry) during the planningprocess, and on developing detailedknowledge of the ecosystem

• The joint efforts of water managementauthorities, environmentalists, scientists,farmers and NGOs in the Lower Moravariver represent a unique example ofinterdisciplinary cooperation and publicparticipation in river basin management

• Trilateral management plan priorities beingprepared for the Lower Morava river takeinto account the legislative and financialopportunities provided by implementationof the EU Habitats and Birds Directives,Common Agriculture Policy, RuralDevelopment Regulation and WaterFramework Directive (see Chapters 4 and5).

• The restoration and maintenance of theMorava river floodplains significantlyincreased the biodiversity value of theriver’s ecosystems, particularly wetmeadows


32

Graph 3- The cumulative cost/benefit of 10 years’ restoration and the post-restoration period in the Moravafloodplains for two scenarios (A = minimum number of flood days and B = maximum number of flood days).These depict two curves representing the limits of minimal and maximal estimates of the net social benefit ofthe restoration of degraded and converted meadows over a ten-year period. In all probability, a real net socialbenefit lies between these two curves. Moreover, it should be noted that probability of scenario A is around 20– 30 per cent and probability of scenario B is between 70 – 80 per cent

-4 000 000 S k

-2 000 000 S k

0 S k

2 000 000 S k

4 000 000 S k

6 000 000 S k

8 000 000 S k

10 000 000 S k

12 000 000 S k

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

Ř ada2

Ř ada1S c e na r io B

S c e na r io A

Case study II: The river Clyde, Scotland,UK72


The river Clyde flows for around 100 milesfrom its source in the Southern Uplands ofScotland, down through the country’s formerindustrial heartland to Glasgow and out intothe Firth of Clyde (the estuary of the Clyde).On its journey from the hills to the sea theriver flows across many local authorityboundaries and receives water draining a largegeographical area.

Causes of flooding

Under natural conditions the Clyde was ashallow river with shoals, which posed aproblem for trade as ships were unable tonavigate the river channel up to Glasgow.Once ports were developed in the lowerestuary it was not long before efforts werebeing made to deepen the river, achieved by

72 Information provided by Mike Donaghy, WWF Scotland.Phone : +44 1887 820 449 or email :[email protected]

narrowing the channel, building quay wallsand by dredging. These alterations havechanged, and will continue to affect, how theriver responds to flood events.

The key factors in flooding are intensity andduration of rainfall and initial catchmentconditions. A wet catchment has no extracapacity to store water and thus river flows


33

peak faster. Coastal/tidal flooding can occurduring exceptionally high tides or during stormevents when low pressure systems result instorm surges that funnel water up the estuary.Wind action causes increased wave heightswhich also contribute to coastal flooding.Drainage networks in urban areas have beendeveloped to take away surface runoff andsewage. These are sometimes old, withinsufficient capacity if they have not beenupgraded to reflect increased development.They are generally designed to carry runofffrom a storm event with a 1 in 5 probability,i.e. with a 20% chance of occurring in anygiven year. During more intense storm eventsurban drainage networks can be overwhelmed,leading to flooding. More severe floods arepredicted to occur more frequently in thefuture as a result of climatic changes. Amedium climate-change scenario predicts thatthe odds of a currently ‘1 in 100 years’ floodevent are expected to narrow to 1 in 65-70years by the 2020s and to 1 in 40-60 years bythe 2080s.

Main flooding issues for the Clyde catchment:

• The Clyde is Scotland’s largest populatedcatchment

• Flooding from tributaries of the Clydeoften occurs in urban areas

• Tidal flooding occurs in the Firth of Clyde• Glasgow experiences the interaction of

both extreme river flows and extreme tides• Urban drainage networks (especially older

infrastructure) may be overwhelmed• Siltation has reduced channel capacity and

changed the flow regime• The river basin covers an extensive

geographic area, so solutions may not bewithin the jurisdiction of any one localauthority

Flood history

The threat of flooding from the Clyde is not anew phenomenon but something thatgenerations of Clydesiders have had to face.In recent decades, major floods occurred in1977, 1985 and 1994. Climate change

scenarios predict an increase in the frequencyof flooding in the future.

The catchment of the river Clyde is home tomore than a third of Scotland’s 5 millioninhabitants, with over 600,000 living inGlasgow. Glasgow ranks 4th among UK citiesat risk from flooding. Recent research for theScottish Executive showed that around 23,000properties are at risk from a one-in-100 yearsflood of the Clyde and its tributaries, with afurther 23,000 properties at risk from tidalflooding in the Clyde estuary, out of a totalnumber of around 780,000 properties.

Scotland has not experienced a flood of thismagnitude in recent years but has been hard hitby devastating regional flooding. TheAssociation of British Insurers estimates that,in the last decade, the three largest floods inScotland cost the insurance industry £170m.The Scottish Executive has reported thataround 170,000 properties in Scotland arethreatened by flooding. Given that the averageinsurance claim for a flooded residentialproperty is £28,000 (EUR 41,000), thepotential flood risk for this sector alone can bevalued at close to £50m (EUR 73 million).

Working with rivers – ecologically sustainableflood management

There are two options available for dealingwith floodwaters: either move them or storethem. In natural, unaltered river systems, boththese processes take place. Wetlands andwashlands provide areas of flood storage,while water moves quickly through steep-sided valleys and gorges.

The Clyde has a variety of engineered flooddefences, the vast majority of which involveencouraging the movement of water. Theseare typified by floodbanks and floodwallswhere rivers pass through built-up areas.These areas no longer have any real potentialfor storage, and are highlighted in red (blackon a grey-scale printout) on the adjacent map.The surviving floodplain could be managedmuch more sustainably to reduce the impact of


34

flood events. As experts predict larger, morefrequent flooding in future, the additionalprotection required could be gained – at leastin part – by new approaches to floodmanagement.

Floodplains as storage

Much of the Upper Clyde catchment has afloodplain, which has been developed foragricultural use rather than housing orindustry. There is potential to make better useof these areas – highlighted in blue in the mapabove (dark grey on a greyscale printout) – forflood storage in order to limit the overalleffects of catchment flooding.

What does the future hold?

(a) 2050: Traditional approach only. Giventhe predicted rise in the frequency andmagnitude of both river and tidal flooding, thetraditional hard engineering flood protectionroute will involve increasing the height ofexisting defences and building new defences toprotect areas that are likely to be affected byflooding in the future.

Using estimated costs for Glasgow, it wouldcost approximately £2,000 (almost EUR3,000) per property for tidal flood prevention.Given that around 93,000 properties inScotland are estimated to be at risk of tidalflooding, it would cost in the region of £186million (EUR 273 million) to protect these

properties with hard defences. A similarfinancial investment is likely to be required toprovide river flood defence walls for thefurther 77,000 properties at risk from riverflooding.

Hard flood defences are a static approach toflood risk management, with a nominal designlife of 50 years, a fixed level of protection andfurther investment required for theirmaintenance. The flood risk, changing climateand land use are all dynamic, and the designparameters are constantly moving.Increasingly high floodwalls are not anenvironmentally or economically sustainableoption, isolating communities from the river,resulting in losses in amenity value, habitatsand species, as well as natural flood alleviationpotential.

(b) 2050: Ecologically sustainable flood riskmanagement across basin. River flowsduring the 1994 floods on the lower Clydeovertopped the artificial banks for more than48 hours. A floodplain of 182 km2 filled withwater to a depth 0.3 m – equating toapproximately 10% of the total Clydecatchment area – would have been required tostore this water until the danger of floodinghad passed. However, a much smaller areacould make a significant difference to thevolume and timing of the flood peak in thelower river if upstream floodplain storagealong the Clyde and its tributaries wasincreased. While such floodplain storagemeasures will not directly help to solveGlasgow’s tidal flooding problems, they canattenuate the effects of high river flowscoinciding with extreme tidal events.However, this demands a strategic approachacross land uses, all tributaries and the estuary,something that is not in place at present.

It is difficult to quantify the cost of usingfloodplains instead of providing hard defences.Under the 2001 Rural Stewardship Scheme,5.5 km2 of floodplain are managed on the basisof an agreement that flooding will not beprevented. Landowners receive an annualpayment of GBP 25 per hectare under this


35

agreement. Given that Scotland’s total inlandfloodplain, not allowing for flood defences,covers 2,950 km2, there is plenty of potentialfor use of environmentally sensitive floodalleviation options. A catchment-wideapproach to flooding should ensure that floodrisk can be managed strategically andproactively, allowing for the best option andthe most sustainable balance to be reached.

Conclusions/Lessons learnt

• The example of the Clyde river basinillustrates that the emphasis should not beon preventing flooding but on bettermanagement of floods. The impacts offlooding can be significantly reduced byecologically sustainable floodmanagement, using information on thewhole catchment to design appropriateflood protection measures for the wholeriver.

• WWF believes that Scotland is at acrossroads in how flood risks are managed.We have the opportunity to deal with theproblem at source, tackling flood riskalongside other water issues, such as waterquality, land use, biodiversity andrecreation. Alternatively, we can continuewith the present fragmented approach,protecting one stretch of river at theexpense of downstream inhabitantsbecause no one stands back to look at thebigger picture.

Case Study III: Tagliamento river, Italy73


The Tagliamento river is located in theSouthern Alps of northeast Italy. It originatesat 1,195 m above sea level and flows for 178km to the northern Adriatic Sea, therebyforming a linking corridor between Alpine and

73 Information provided by Nicoletta Toniutti, WWF Italy,European Alpine Programme +39 0432502275 or [email protected]

Mediterranean zones. Its drainage basin covers2,871 km2. Dikes have constrained the lower30km of the river, so that it is now little morethan an artificial channel, about 175m wide.However, the upper reaches of the river aremore or less intact, so that basic riverprocesses – such as flooding, or the erosionand accumulation of sediment – take placeunder natural conditions.

Map and picture of the Tagliamento river catchmentCauses of flooding

The basins of the main tributaries of the upperTagliamento catchment lie in one of thewettest regions of Europe, where annualprecipitation can reach 3,000 mm. Thecatchment is mainly mountainous and theslopes are very steep, leading to high peakflows and sediment loads in the central andlower part of the basin. The flood peak movesdownstream so fast that it can reach the townof Latisana (on the regulated lower part of theriver) in just 12 hours. Upstream, where thefloodplain still functions naturally, the height


36

of the river rises and falls by only 2m. Closeto Latisana, though, the river is squeezed intosuch a narrow channel that its level mayfluctuate by as much as 7m. The dikes wereoriginally built during the second half of the19th century to protect the main populationcentres and farmland. However, their effecthas been to increase the risk of severeflooding. On 4-5 November 1966, breachingof the dikes caused the deaths of 14 people,more than 5,000 others lost their homesentirely, while 24,000 suffered seriousdamage. Latisana was the most severelyaffected area.

Following the 1966 disaster, the regional andnational authorities began discussing how toprotect people from flooding. However,wetland drainage, dike construction,urbanisation, industrial development andintensive cultivation continued apace in formerfloodplain areas along the middle and lowerTagliamento, further increasing the threat ofcatastrophic flooding. In 1996, water levels inLatisana were close to overtopping the dikesand hydrologists predict that it is only a matterof time before even the 1966 flood level isexceeded.

New plans, old solutions

It is only now, after almost 40 years, that a‘solution’ has been put forward by the localwater authority in the form of a floodprotection plan for the middle and lowerTagliamento. However, this involves theconstruction of artificial floodwater retentionbasins and additional regulation of the river’scourse, which, as discussed below, is far froma sustainable option. Shortcomings in theprocess of developing the plan include lack ofunderstanding about the underlying causes offlooding in Latisana, while the involvement oflocal communities, other stakeholders andscientists has not yet really been implemented.

The plan envisages the construction of floodretention basins along the middle course of theriver. These would cover 14 km2 and becapable of storing up to 30 million cubic

metres of water for at least 10 hours. Thiswould reduce the peak discharge at Latisanafrom up to 5,000 m3 per second to 4,000 m3

per second. The proponents of the schemeclaim this is sufficient to prevent damage frommost flood peaks – except those so severe thatthey are expected to occur, on average, lessthan once in one hundred years. However,recent experience across Europe suggests thatthe frequency of unusually high flooding isincreasing and that the low mathematicalprobability offers little comfort when anexceptional event does occur. Furthermore,the retention basins along the Tagliamentowould be built on intact floodplains anddestroy one of the ecologically most importantareas along the entire river (including aproposed Natura 2000 site). New dikes wouldbe built, further constricting the river’s courseand significantly reducing recharge of thearea’s important groundwater aquifer.Narrowing of the riverbed would alsoaccelerate the water flow, thereby increasingerosion.

A new process for a more sustainableapproach to flood alleviation in theTagliamento

WWF’s European Alpine Programme hasfinanced a preliminary feasibility study, takinginto account hydrological, socio-economic andecological issues. This study showed thatalthough there are flood management optionsthat would provide both better protection forhuman communities and maintenance of theriver’s ecosystem, international experienceshows that successful design andimplementation requires in-depthunderstanding of the hydrological,geomorphological and ecological features ofthe entire watershed. In order to achieve thisfor the Tagliamento, it is a matter of urgencyto acquire additional information andknowledge; not only from multidisciplinary,scientific studies, but also from activeengagement with the people living andworking in the basin.


37

In fact, the WWF study highlights serious datadeficiencies concerning many features of theTagliamento watershed. The safety of thebasin’s population and the future of asignificant part of Friulia depend on rectifyingthese shortcomings. A multidisciplinary teamof specialists, working in cooperation with thebasin authority, should carry out not onlyresearch along the river corridor itself, but alsostudies to enable integrated catchmentmanagement, thereby safeguarding thehydrological and ecological functioning of theriver. This would be achieved by protectingand enhancing the values of remaining naturalareas and taking into account all the problemsthat affect the fluvial corridor, as well as byidentifying appropriate actions that are in linewith the principles of the EU WaterFramework Directive.

By following this approach, it would be quitepossible to make the Tagliamento river a focusof international interest, thereby generatinglong-term advantages with regard to bothsocio-economic and environmental aspects.Technically, there are no real limitations. It isclear that the safety of human populations canguaranteed by promoting restoration of ahydro-geological and ecological equilibrium.What is lacking is the political will to pursuethis course. The planning and decision-making context must enable sustainablemanagement options to be identified andselected.

3.4 – Conclusions

It is abundantly clear that water-related issuescut across sectors (e.g. agriculture, industry),political and administrative borders (e.g.regional, national and internationalboundaries), interest groups (e.g. public,private, NGO, recreational, industrial),environmental requirements of differentspecies groups (e.g. people, animals, plants)and can be found in different ecologicalsystems or ‘compartments’ (e.g. rivers, lakes,wetlands, above ground, below ground, soil).It is therefore necessary that any water-

management policy takes these crosscuttingelements into account and defines ways inwhich to address them fully. Policies shouldbe oriented towards ensuring the proper andlong-term functioning of ecosystems andmaintenance of biodiversity. This requiresassessing the needs and expectations of all‘water stakeholders’ at a basin-wide level andthe basing of final decisions on the bestpossible information. Integrated River BasinManagement (IRBM) is internationallyrecognised as the best mechanism foraccomplishing these objectives.

IRBM means addressing at river basin level allactivities, interests, impacts and effectsrelating to the water environment,understanding the relationships between themand defining measures to tackle existingproblems (e.g. pollution, over abstraction,floods, droughts) in an integrated manner. Inthis way, sustainable solutions – that respondto the needs of people, economy and theenvironment – are generated, instead ofrepeating the failed and fragmentedapproaches of the past that deal with problemson a local, and usually temporary, basis.

It follows that, in order to be successful, flood(damage) prevention, protection andmanagement strategies need to take intoaccount the entire river basin (itscharacteristics, inhabitants, uses, ecosystems,etc.) in order to generate a positive cumulativeoutcome from the individual measuresimplemented along a watercourse. Suchstrategies should ensure flood managementmeasures that are ecologically sustainable inaddition to delivering increased security forpeople and property. A fundamentalrequirement of such an approach iscooperation between sectors and stakeholdersdealing with different aspects of flooding (e.g.weather forecasting and risk planning). Theculmination should be the definition of a long-term, interdisciplinary strategy, with a strongsafety component, based on a combination ofstructural, preventive and non-structuralmeasures to be applied at the basin level, andacross boundaries where necessary.


38

Experiences from Europe confirm that:

• Ecologically sustainable floodmanagement can be successful inachieving the objectives of safety forpeople as well as preservation of the riverecosystem if based on basin-wide riverrestoration/conservation; if all relevantsectors (e.g. agriculture, forestry, NGOs)are involved during the planning process;and if detailed knowledge of thehydrological, geomorphological andecological features of the entire watershedecosystem is developed – not only frommultidisciplinary scientific studies, butalso from the participation of those wholive and carry out their activities along theriver by actively involving the basincommunities.

• A certain flood risk will always exist.Ecologically sustainable floodmanagement works by shifting theemphasis from preventing flooding tobetter management of floods. The impactsof flooding can be significantly reduced byusing information from, and designingappropriate flood management measuresfor, the whole river basin taking intoaccount its ecology (e.g. setting asidefloodplain areas for flood storage in orderto limit the overall effects of flooding inthe basin).

• Many countries are now at a crossroads inhow they manage flood risk. They havethe opportunity to deal with the problem atsource, tackling flood risk alongside otherwater issues, like water quality, land use,biodiversity and recreation, in an IRBMcontext. Alternatively, they can continuewith the present fragmented approach,protecting one stretch of river at theexpense of downstream inhabitantsbecause no one stands back to look at thebigger picture.

The WFD requires the establishment of IRBMacross Europe via the development of RiverBasin Management Plans (RBMPs) in a

participatory manner and is, therefore, theright vehicle to provide an IRBM context toflood management. It follows that watermanagement and water-management relatedmeasures to prevent, protect and mitigate flooddamage required at national or international(transboundary) levels must be included in theWFD’s RBMP planning process; a conclusionsupported by Article 13.5 of the Directive.Thus, IRBM requires – and the WFD allows –that for each River Basin District, there shouldbe a single RBMP governing overall spatialintegration of measures for sustainable watermanagement, including those for flood(damage) protection, prevention andmitigation.

Indeed, if flood risk is to be managed viaIntegrated River Basin Management – a pointthat is universally agreed74 – there should beno separate planning process at the river basinlevel to deal specifically with flooding andrunning in parallel with the WFD RBMP 75.This would be liable to result in proposals thatare less effective and less sustainable, makingno sense economically, environmentally oradministratively (the latter bearing in mindthat the same over-stretched, under-resourcedpublic administration body is liable to end upwith responsibility for developing andimplementing two overlapping plans). Worsestill, measures proposed under a separate‘flood plan’ might even become an obstaclefor achieving the legally biding objective ofunder the WFD’s RBMP. Indeed, to avoidsuch a situation, any measures developed formanaging flood risks, and that might have anegative effect on the achievement of ‘goodecological and chemical status’, must gothrough the requirements of the WFD RBMPplanning process, including derogation tests.

74 As stated in the conclusions of several internationalconferences on flooding, detailed in Chapter 4 and elsewherein this paper, as well as the EU’s Best practices for floodprotection, prevention and mitigation paper (see also Chapter4)75 As seems to be suggested by the European Commissionservices developing the Communication and ActionProgramme on Flood prevention, protection and mitigation


39

4. Policy tools in Europe forecologically sustainable floodmanagement

The recent flood events in Europe in thesummer of 2002 were considered by many asone of the worst natural disasters in livingmemory. The resulting devastation requiredrapid and effective measures to minimise lossof life and property, and to prevent additionalrisks to human health and the environment.However, it was also clear that radical changeswere needed to policies and practicesgoverning planning and management of landand water if such catastrophes were to beprevented in the future.

As a consequence, a range of actions andinitiatives were stimulated at European andnational levels, especially with regard topolicy and financial measures. The latter wereaimed mainly at paying for immediate clean-up and risk reduction activities, while policyinitiatives have taken a longer-termperspective and have begun to address thedriving forces behind the increasing regularityand severity of flood events in Europe.

The policy and legal framework for ecologicallysustainable flood management in Europealready exists

WWF believes that the existing internationallegal framework – at both European and globallevels – provides a sound basis forecologically and economically sustainableapproaches to flood management and riskreduction76. Key instruments include the EUWater Framework Directive (WFD) and otherEU water-related Directives, EU natureconservation legislation, the WFD CommonImplementation Strategy process and global

76 Cf. Background briefing paper Managing Floods in Europe:The answers already exist – More intelligent river basinmanagement using wetlands can alleviate future floodingevents available athttp://www.panda.org/downloads/europe/managingfloodingbriefingpaper.pdf

treaties such as the ‘Ramsar’ Convention onWetlands and the Convention on BiologicalDiversity.

4.1- EU policy tools

4.1.1- The Water Framework Directive:The right tool for ecologicallysustainable flood management inEurope

The Water Framework Directive77 (WFD)offers an extraordinary opportunity to manageall land and waters at a river basin and sub-basin level in a way that protects theenvironment and people from the damagingeffects of flooding. It represents a significantchange to the traditional water managementpolicies in Europe because integrated basin-wide management is its fundamental buildingblock.

Integration – in order to deliver the Directive’sobjectives – is required not onlygeographically, but also across policy sectors,recognising that policies impacting onfreshwater ecosystems must not be developedand implemented in isolation from oneanother.

The WFD also provides forinternational/transboundary cooperation andplanning, and has a strong emphasis on publicparticipation. It further allows for workingwith nature, rather than against it, through therestoration and conservation of wetlands andfloodplains, which are not only central to thedelivery of ‘good water status’ – the overallaim of the Directive – but also help to reducethe likelihood of catastrophic flood impacts.

Although the specific role that the WFD mayplay in precautionary flood (damage) 77 The WFD text can be downloaded from the EU’s ‘Eur-Lex’legislation database:http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/lif/reg/en_300L0060.html andfrom the WWF website:http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_do/freshwater/initiatives/policy.cfm


40

protection is not explicit in the text of theDirective, the issue is addressed indirectly viathe obligation for ‘no further deterioration’ ofaquatic systems. Nonetheless, it clearly sets asone of its purposes “to mitigate the effects offloods and drought” (Article 1 e). In addition,the obligation, set out in Article 4, to achieve‘good ecological and chemical status’ in allwaters by 2015 provides the context foridentifying ecological solutions for problems,including flooding, in a freshwater ecosystem.The Directive’s specific requirement “toprotect, restore and enhance wetlands” will bekey for the development of ecologicallysustainable flood management measures.

River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) arethe framework within which the measures forachieving ‘good status’ are to be defined, andprovide the appropriate mechanism for spatialintegration of measures for sustainable watermanagement, i.e. for the implementation ofIntegrated River Basin Management (IRBM).In the case of transboundary basins, the WFDrequires RMBPs to be prepared jointly by twoor more Member States (and in conjunctionwith non-EU countries where applicable).

By making public participation mandatory inthe development of RBMPs, the WFDprovides a unique opportunity for cooperationand involvement of stakeholders. These rangefrom the water management sector, to majorusers such as agriculture and industry,secondary users such as water supplycompanies, NGOs, the general public andauthorities involved in regional planning atlocal, national, and international levels. Thisparticipatory approach should facilitate thedevelopment of solutions based on morecomplete knowledge of the effects of floodingon a broad range of stakeholders.

Indeed, because a RMBP is the primaryvehicle for defining and implementing all themeasures necessary for achieving ‘good status’in a participatory manner for a given riverbasin district, WWF is convinced that theRBMP planning process must include anywater management and water—management

related measures for flood risk managementrequired at national or international levels.This is supported by Article 13.5 of theDirective allowing the RBMP to besupplemented by another plan dealing with aspecific water issue. Thus, IRBM requires andthe WFD allows that, for each River BasinDistrict, there should be a single RBMPgoverning overall spatial integration ofmeasures for sustainable water management,including those for flood (damage) protection,prevention and mitigation.

It would make no sense at all – economically,environmentally or even administratively, asthe same administration might be in charge ofboth – to develop and implement a separateplanning process for flood management78 andoutcomes are likely to be less effective andless sustainable. Worse still, measures under aseparate ‘flood plan’ might even becomeobstacles for achieving the legally bidingobjective of ‘good ecological and chemicalstatus’ under the WFD’s RBMP. Indeed, toavoid this, any measures developed to managethe flood risk that could have a negative effecton the achievement of the ‘good status’objective must go through the WFD RBMPplanning process requirements, includingderogation tests.

4.1.2- The WFD Common ImplementationStrategy guidance documents andflood management

In order to assist the achievement of thedemanding objectives of the WFD on theground, the EU Member States and EuropeanCommission agreed in May 2001 to develop aWater Framework Directive ‘CommonImplementation Strategy’ (WFD CIS). This isa platform bringing together the EuropeanCommission, Member States, CandidateCountries and stakeholders, for the purpose ofsharing information, experience and expertiseto develop guidance documents on several of 78 As seems to be suggested by the European Commissionservices developing the Communication and ActionProgramme on Flood prevention, protection and mitigation.


41

the complex technical issues covered by theWFD.

Thirteen Working Groups, each under theleadership of one or more countries, wereestablished mainly to identify and select ‘bestpractice’ approaches to river basinmanagement planning and to generateguidance that is technically feasible andecologically and economically sound. Theguidance documents79 are now subject totesting and validation in ‘pilot’ river basins,prior to production of a Manual on IntegratedRiver Basin Management to assist regional,local and national authorities with WFDimplementation and compliance.

At first, flood management issues were notcovered explicitly by the WFD CIS process.However, the summer 2002 floods pushed theEU Member State Water Directors tointroduce, in all WFD CIS guidancedocuments, a paragraph stressing the need tomanage floods as part of integrated river basinmanagement (IRBM). This called for the“Integration of all significant managementand ecological aspects relevant to sustainableriver basin planning including those that arebeyond the scope of the Water FrameworkDirective such as flood protection andprevention”. The fact that this text wasintroduced in the Foreword of all guidancedocuments reflects the political importancefloods had gained in the WFD CIS agenda bythen and emphasises the cross-cutting natureof flood management. Moreover, it alsounderlines the need for Member States to usethe WFD’s full potential by making floodmanagement an integral part of their RBMPs.

79 Guidance on: Analysis of pressures and impacts;Identification of water bodies; Public participation in relationto the WFD; Typology, reference conditions and classificationsystems for transitional and coastal waters; Identification anddesignation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies;Economics and the environment; Monitoring; Referenceconditions and ecological status class boundaries for inlandsurface waters; Intercalibration; the Planning process; GIS;Wetlands; and Ecological classification all available athttp://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents&vm=detailed&sb=Title

Indeed, the WFD CIS did finally become thecontext for a European initiative on floodprevention, protection and mitigation, whichhas led to the drafting of a Best practicespaper on flood prevention, protection andmitigation and will further lead to the adoptionof a European Commission Communicationand Action Programme on the issue (see 4.1.3below).

4.1.2.1- The WFD CIS horizontal guidancedocument on “The role of wetlands in theWater Framework Directiv”

In Article 1(a) the WFD clearly identifies partof its purpose as being to protect, restore andenhance wetlands. However, it does notdefine what a wetland is, nor does it explain towhat extent wetlands should be used toachieve the WFD’s environmental objectives,such as “mitigating the effects of floods”.Because of these ambiguities, the EEB andWWF persuaded the European Commission,EU Member States and Candidate Countriesand other stakeholders that, in the context ofthe WFD CIS, the role the wetlands play inimplementing the WFD should be exploredand clarified.

The Water Directors meeting in November2002 provided a common ‘Wetlands’ text tobe inserted in all WFD CIS guidancedocuments. In this text the Directorsacknowledged that wetlands are coming underincreasing pressure and highlighted theirpotentially important role in river basinmanagement and in helping to achieve WFDenvironmental objectives. It is important tonote that this text states that: “Wetlandcreation and enhancement can in appropriatecircumstances offer sustainable, cost-effectiveand socially acceptable mechanisms forhelping to achieve the environmentalobjectives of the Directive. In particular,wetlands can help to: abate pollution impacts,contribute to mitigating the effects ofdroughts and floods, help to achievesustainable coastal management and topromote groundwater re-charge. Therelevance of wetlands within programmes of


42

measures is examined in the horizontalguidance paper on wetlands”.

The Water Directors also recommended that aWFD CIS horizontal guidance document onwetlands should be prepared to realise theprinciples mentioned in the ‘common text onwetlands’. This horizontal guidance is nowavailable. Although the document does notdefine wetlands, it provides a description ofwhat wetlands are and explains therelationship between ground- and surface-water bodies (the ‘units’ to which theenvironmental objectives of the WFD are to beapplied, and monitored) and wetlands. It alsoexplains how to include wetlands within theriver basin planning cycle80. The centralchapters in the horizontal guidance documenton wetlands are:

• The specific role wetlands play inachieving WFD environmentalobjectives. This is illustrated by specifyingminimum requirements, the relationshipbetween wetlands and WFD objectives forsurface water, and the relationship betweenwetlands systems and Heavily Modifiedand Artificial Water bodies. It alsoexplains the relevance of wetlands inachieving environmental objectives forgroundwater, transitional and coastalwaters, and protected areas.

• The role of wetlands in ‘basic’ and‘supplementary’ measures. This chapterpays particular attention to wetlandrestoration and recreation as possible‘measures’ within the RBMP’s programmeof measures, also taking into accounteconomic tests, as necessary, to preventfurther deterioration and to achieve ‘goodecological status’.

It also pays special consideration to howwetlands can be used to manage floods and

80 In these cases, a clear distinction is made between legalobligations and ‘best practice’ recommendations. Note thatEU Member States and Candidate Countries always have theflexibility to establish stricter environmental protectionaccording to their particular national concerns

droughts in a manner compatible with WFDobjectives including through case studies.It stresses that such consideration “couldgreatly assist Member States with (WFD)implementation, and in integrating floodmanagement strategies with River BasinManagement Plans. It is highly likely thata mixed range of flood management optionswill be part of sustainable floodmanagement in the future”.

4.1.3- European initiative on floodprevention, protection and mitigation

Another important reaction to the floods inCentral and Eastern Europe during the summerof 2002 was the clear perception by theauthorities at national, regional and local level– as well as the EU institutions, insurancecompanies and others – that traditional policiesand practices for flood prevention andprotection, based on infrastructuredevelopment, had failed significantly. Policydecisions and instruments for the future had,therefore, to go beyond the existingperceptions and ‘beliefs’ and really address theroot-causes behind floods, not just thesymptoms.

At European level, the EU EnvironmentCouncil meeting in October 2002 sent a veryclear signal of this change of perception bymandating the European Commission to beginelaboration of a Europe-wide instrument thatwould assist Member States and Candidatecountries in defining and implementing newand more effective flood prevention measures.These could also constitute a paradigm shifttowards ecologically sustainable floodmanagement, and some Member States (e.g.Germany) have already started moving in thisdirection.

In November 2002, the European Commissionsupported and took forward a proposal madeby the Netherlands to the other EU MemberState and Accession Country Water Directorsthat an ‘Initiative on flood prevention,protection and mitigation’ in the context of theWFD CIS process be developed. This


43

initiative, co-led by the Netherlands andFrance, was aimed at sharing experiences andcompiling ‘best practice’ examples, and otherrelevant information, for sustainable floodmanagement. Key concepts for itsdevelopment would be policy integration atEU and national levels, use of existinglegislation and instruments, and strengtheningof international cooperation.

This meeting was followed in December 2002by a High Level International Conference on‘Prevention of flood hazards by integratingsocio-economic and environmentalconsiderations’ in Budapest81 (in December2002), which took forward this concept andbegan defining what such a pan-Europeaninitiative should encompass. The final JointStatement from the conference called for a“new comprehensive approach to floodmanagement at an international level,implying better harmonisation of waterpolicies and land use practices, as well asenvironmental protection and natureconservation”. IRBM was recognised as thecore element for flood prevention, protectionand mitigation, and the RBMPs under theWFD as the fundamental tool to achieve theseobjectives.

A further International Conference on‘Precautionary Flood Protection in Europe’took place in Bonn in February 2003, andemphasised the need for integrating theEuropean initiative on flood protection intoother policy areas, such as transport, shipping,urban development, emergency management,and especially nature conservation.

Subsequently, during their June 2003 meetingin Athens, Water Directors achievedagreement on, inter alia:

81 Budapest Initiative on strengthening InternationalCooperation on Sustainable Flood Management, JointStatement by the Heads of Delegations, InternationalConference on Prevention of Flood Hazards, Budapest, 30November – 1 December 2002. Available athttp://www.kancellaria.gov.hu/tevekenyseg/esemeny/2002/12/1201_e_5.htm

• The need for reinforced politicalcommitment to flood prevention and floodprotection.

• Integrated river basin management beingthe tool of choice to address floodprevention and flood protection, withexperiences and achievements byInternational River Conventions (Danube,Rhine, Elbe, Oder, Moselle/Mosel,Schelde/Escaut and Meuse/Maas) beinghighly relevant.

• EU funding mechanisms being verypowerful and effective instruments forpromoting investments in flood preventionand protection schemes, with fundingconditional upon the existence ofintegrated flood prevention plans at thelevel of the river basin.

Some of these meetings were developed inparallel with the WFD CIS process and werenot formally part of it, whereas others were.In all cases, however, the main conclusionsprovided significant inputs to the formulationof the document ‘Best practices on floodprevention, protection and mitigation’developed in the context of the WFD CIS as aresult of the above-mentioned WaterDirector’s agreement. A Working Groupcharged specifically with the task of preparingthis document was established under the jointleadership of the Netherlands and France withparticipation from most of the EU MemberStates and Accession Countries as well assome stakeholders, including WWF. TheWater Directors at their meeting in Rome inNovember 2003 endorsed the final version ofthis paper82. Its various components will laterbe integrated into the WFD CIS ‘Manual’, duefor publication in 2006.

The ‘Best practices on flood prevention,protection and mitigation’ document includesan exhaustive analysis of the root causes ofincreased flood impacts in Europe. It also

82 The paper is available athttp://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/ksdocumentssonsfloodspre&vm=detailed&sb=Title


44

identifies what needs to change in terms ofexisting practices and ‘mentalities’ in order totackle flooding more successfully andsustainably at all levels, and makesrecommendations on how to deal with thepreviously identified root-causes. Thedocument also constitutes an inventory of ‘bestpractice’ in flood-risk reduction, based onexperience across Europe with regard to:

• Integrated river basin approach• Public awareness, public participation and

insurance• Research, education and exchange of

knowledge• Retention of water and non-structural

measures• Land use, zoning and risk assessment• Structural measures and their impact• Flood emergency• Prevention of pollution

Furthermore, at the Rome Water Directorsmeeting, “the Commission (DG Environment)presented a position paper on the preparationof a European initiative on flood preventionand protection. The Commission envisagespreparing a package on flood prevention andflood protection including a Communicationon ongoing flood-related EU activities(including funding aspects) and a legislativeproposal focusing on flood prevention andprotection plans at river basin level, closelylinked to the Water Framework Directive. Theproposals of the Commission will make bestuse of the (…) finalised document on “BestPractices”. The above-mentionedCommunication – bringing together all theflood-related activities at the EU level as wellas an Action Programme on Flood prevention,protection and mitigation are expected in June2004.

In addition, Germany will host an internationalconference on the issue of floods under theumbrella of the United Nations EconomicCommission for Europe (UNECE) in June2004. The Dutch Presidency of the EU, duringthe second half of 2004, also intends to hold apolitical debate on flood prevention and

protection at an informal EnvironmentCouncil. All these events should contribute tofurther promoting the subject of floodmanagement in the EU’s agenda and togenerating more ideas for addressing floodingin an ecologically sustainable way.

4.1.4- EU civil protection initiative83.

As a further response to the flood disaster of2002, the Commission starting working on theadoption of an ‘Integrated EU strategy onprevention, preparedness and response tonatural, man-made and other risks’.Preparatory work for this strategy has taken acivil protection angle and has been led by DGEnvironment. The strategy is supposed tocover a whole range of issues from forest firesto technological disasters (e.g. spills fromindustrial plants), including a strongcomponent on flooding. The goal is to protectcitizens and the environment by identifyingrisks, raising public awareness, adoptingpreventive measures and identifying necessaryactions. This requires integrating relevantinstruments and initiatives under severalpolicy areas at EU level.

Taking into account that the protection ofpeople and environment is a complex issue;the ‘environmental component’ of civilprotection policy should have full regard forexisting environmental legislation instruments.It is important for any new strategy torecognise that the WFD already provides forthe integration of sectoral planning,international cooperation and ‘good status’ ofwaters through IRBM, including issues andmeasures related to flooding. Furthermore, itis vital that links should be established withthe above-mentioned initiative on ‘Floodprevention, protection and mitigation’, as wellas with the future European CommissionCommunication and Action Programme on thetopic planned for the summer of 2004. It isalso important that, in the context of civilprotection planning policies, Member States 83 More information available athttp://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/prote/integrated_strategy_en.htm


45

and public authorities realise and tackle thelimitations inherent to floodprediction/modelling methods.

WWF has recently become aware that theflooding component of the civil protectioninitiative could be integrated into the EuropeanCommission’s forthcoming Communicationand Action Programme on Flood prevention,protection and mitigation. We support thismove and hope that these initiatives willfinally open the way for ecological approachesto sustainable flood management and changethe reluctant, sceptical or just overly cautiousattitude of many governments.

4.2- Other European initiatives

As shown in previous sections and chapters,the increasing social and economic impacts ofnatural hazards, especially flooding, has raisedawareness at the pan-European level andmobilised transboundary actions, includingthose led by international river commissions.

In 2000, at the Second Meeting of the Partiesto the United Nations/Economic Commissionfor Europe (UN/ECE) Convention on theProtection and Use of TransboundaryWatercourses and International Lakes,guidelines for sustainable flood prevention84

were adopted. This is an instrument aiming toreduce the impact of flood disasters in Europeand was developed by a Task Force on floodprevention and protection, which includednational experts from European countries ledby Germany, together with experts from theWorld Health Organisation, the WorldMeteorological Organisation, the InternationalDecade for Natural Disaster Reduction, theECE Secretariat and the InternationalCommissions for the Protection of the RiversRhine and Elbe.

The adoption of the guidelines was animportant stepping stone towards a more 84 For more informationhttp://www.unece.org/env/water/publications/documents/guidelinesfloode.pdf

integrated and well-established floodprevention policy in the European region. Thedocument emphasises the need to implementexisting preventive measures such as: building(construction) codes, legislation to relocateinfrastructure away from flood-prone areas,appropriate land-use planning, and adequatelydesigned floodplains and flood controlstructures. Priority is given to integrated watermanagement measures for the whole riverbasin rather than to the management of floodsas such. This includes integration of therequirements of flood prevention andreduction, including the provision of retentionareas, into physical planning as well as urbanand rural development. Cooperation withineach riparian country as well as effectivecross-border collaboration and stronginvolvement of the public are highlighted ascrucial elements that governments shouldconsider when setting up joint managementbodies.

Both the Rhine and Danube rivers – two of themost important in Europe – have well-established river basin organisations in theform of International Commissions, whichcoordinate policy and technical work at awhole-basin level. Significant work onecologically sustainable flood management hasbeen carried out in both basins; for furtherinformation see: http://www.iksr.org/hw/icpr/and www.icpdr.org

4.3- National policy initiatives

One good example, among many in Europe, isBelgium. Others include Scotland, Hungary,Germany and Poland, but for the purposes ofthis document the Belgian case has beenelaborated.

4.3.1- Belgium

Environmental issues, including flooding,come under the responsibility of Belgium’sregional governments. This means thatFlanders, Wallonia and the Brussels Regionhave all developed different strategies.


46

Nevertheless, as part of the InternationalCommission for the Scheldt and the Meuse, allthree regions attempt to work together.

Tidal flooding – Flemish flood policy and theScheldt river basin

With a population density of 434 inhabitantsper square kilometre, the Flemish region is oneof the most densely populated areas in Europe.In addition, a majority of the region lies in theScheldt river basin – the most industrialised inEurope with large urban conglomerations andEurope’s highest population density. Thelength of the main river is 355 km, of which160 km are tidal. Storm tides and heavyrainfall can cause flooding due to erosion, andrunoff from drained agricultural areas and‘sealed’ urban surfaces. Part of the main riverand some of its tributaries have been canalisedin the past and the whole system is heavilyregulated by weirs and sluices.

The approach followed by water managers hasevolved greatly during the last decade. Afterserious flooding in 1976, a flood-protectionprogramme was developed. This programme,called the Sigma-Plan, has been revisedrecently.

The most remarkable action from this plan isproviding “room for the river” via the creationof new floodplains using the original conceptof ‘controlled floodplains’ and ‘controlledreduced tide plains’.

Twelve controlled flood areas, togethercovering some 550 ha, have been constructedin Flanders along the Scheldt and itstributaries. The largest area, the polders ofKruibeke, Bazel and Rupelmonde, totallingsome 600 ha near Antwerp, is now beingconstructed. The concept is to make thispolder into a nature area with only a slighttide. By letting a limited volume of water intothe polder when the water level is normal, thelowest parts will change into a freshwater tidalarea. The higher parts of the polder, whichflood only rarely, will be grazed by herds ofhorses and cattle living under natural

conditions. Freshwater tides, grazing and localseepage of fresh spring water will make thepolder a very attractive nature and recreationarea.

Such freshwater tidal areas have become rarealong West European estuaries, but in thiscase, an enormous area is being restored.Through the revised Sigma-Plan, thegovernment has decided to create and restorean additional 4,000 ha of controlled floodareas along the river and intends to integratethese measures into the WFD River BasinManagement Plan for the Scheldt.

Rainwater run-off and the Meuse river basin

The Meuse is mainly a rain-fed river. Thismeans that it is largely supplied with waterfrom the low mountain ranges in WesternEurope: the Ardennes in France and Wallonia.The result is extremely high water peaks, butalso extremely low water levels in the summer.

For many years, the governments of Belgiumand the Netherlands have searched forsolutions for the Meuse. The best known arethe plans for enlargement of the Grensmaas,the 40-km stretch of river forming the borderbetween Flanders and the Netherlands.Widening the river over this distance willsubstantially reduce high water levels and willincrease the safety of residents in villagesalong the Meuse. It will also create a 1,400 hanature area where the river can go its own wayand forge a dynamic river landscape (i.e. theproject will create ‘room for the river’).

Plans and works are underway, but will not besufficient – on their own – for combating theflood problems along the Meuse and furtheraction is still required upstream. Therefore,WWF-Netherlands, in cooperation withWWF-Belgium and the Walloon NatureOrganisation, have initiated a new project85 to 85 Cf. Litjens, G., Helmer, W., Winden, and A., Overmars, W.,2000, Mountains of Water - Water management as sport in theRhine River Basin ('Bergen van water - waterbeheer alstopsport', full English version available), WWF – Netherlandsas well as Winden, A., Overmars, W. and Braakhekke, W.,2004, Natural water storage in the low mountain ranges in the


47

increase the retention capacities of uplandareas. The better the functioning of the‘natural sponge’ upstream, the higher theamount of rainwater that can be retained, andthe higher the chance that a given rainfallevent will end before the sponge becomessaturated. The project demonstrates thatthrough implementation of multiple low-costmeasures in various small wetlands in the lowmountains of the Ardennes, it will be possibleto retain rainwater just long enough to avoidextreme water damage downstream.

The impacts of urbanisation

The very high population density and the lackof a long-term vision for spatial planning havechanged Belgium into one vast urban area, theresult being that natural floodplains have beencut off from their rivers and built over. Rivershave therefore lost their ‘breathing space’ andsome aquifers have dried up.

Under the Flemish Environmental Plan, everymunicipality or province has to strive towardsa sustainable local water management andfocus on the sub-basin approach. In this way,intensive cooperation between the differentmunicipalities within a watershed is needed.The steps that have to be taken at differentlevels are thus a balanced mix of actions,vision-building and planning. Municipalitiesand provinces receive subsidies from theFlemish Government, the level of whichdepends on the progress made in developingplans and agreements. Since local authoritiesvery often have a lack of financial resources todevelop their own policies, this instrument hasproven to be an incredibly powerful tool forachieving real, tangible environmental benefitsat the local level.

As for the Brussels Region, problems ofexcessive rainwater run-off have not yet beendiscussed, and the approach tends to be one of

catchments of the Rhine and the Meuse - Storing water nearthe source (abridged version available in English), WWF –Netherlands. Both available athttp://www.wnf.nl/wnf/website/index.cfm/id=098E1828-ECA8-4DD7-BD590FF22AE5A939

looking for conventional – but unsustainable –hard engineering, end-of-pipe solutions.

The Walloon government recently agreed the‘Plan PLUIES’, a plan to combat flooding. Itforesees, among other measures, a reduction inrainwater run-off from both urban and ruralareas by increasing rainwater infiltration,restoring wetlands and the functioning offloodplains, and combating erosion fromagriculture areas.

Far-reaching measures – regardless of howcostly and sometimes unpopular they are –will be needed in Belgium if the country wantsto solve its current and future water problems,given that these have resulted from poorwater-management policies over the course ofmany decades.

4.4- Local policy initiatives

WWF work across Europe has confirmed thecrucial role of local communities indeveloping and managing projects, especiallywith regard to water management. Activeparticipation of local action groups – formedby members of communities and differentstakeholders – is a firm basis for the bottom-upand cross-sectoral approach that is essential forsuccessful integrated river basin management,including ecologically sustainable floodmanagement.

4.4.1- Olsavica river, Slovakia

The Olsavica river basin is located in EasternSlovakia. Intensive agriculture over thesecond part of the 20th century disrupted theintact river system by the removal of terraces,extensive drainage and integration of arablesoil into large blocks, which resulted in severesoil erosion and flood damage in the Olsavicavalley. The negative effects of agriculturalpractices were noticed by non-governmentalorganisations, who entered into dialogue withlocal people and raised awareness of theflooding problem. The interest and the will oflocal people to change the situation


48

encouraged the DAPHNE Institute of AppliedEcology to raise funds for improvement of soiland water management in the Olsavica valley.The project concept was recognised by theMinistry of Environment and later financedby a World Bank/GEF project.

The initiative, supported by detailed mappingof the landscape structure and valuablescientific data, has an emphasis on theinvolvement of local people and theirparticipation in the decision-making processrelated to managing the catchment area.Intensive discussions with the mainstakeholder groups started from an early stage(in 1999) and several workshops were heldwith representatives of the local community,farming cooperative, and regional bodies forwater management and agriculture. Asmentioned many times elsewhere in this paper,flood protection requires an interdisciplinaryapproach. Therefore, the next step was toinvolve ecologists and water-managementexperts, who used the results of hydrologicalanalyses to evaluate a proposal for land-usechanges in order to increase the naturalretention capacity. The model was alsoexamined in terms of socio-economic benefits.

The proposal for land-use changes wasendorsed by key institutions for watermanagement, agriculture and natureconservation, and this helped to achieveagreement with the farming cooperative thatoperates in the area. Implementation of therestoration plan started in spring 2003. Thisexample clearly indicates that improvedwatershed management needs closecooperation and coordination of experts fromdifferent fields (water management, ecology,agriculture etc.) as well as support from thedecision-making authorities. In this case,implementation of the proposed measuresrelies mainly on farmers and landowners andthe project would never have been successfulwithout the involvement of all keystakeholders from the early stages of theprocess.

4.4.2- Somerset Levels and Moors project,UK

The ‘Wise Use of Floodplains’ project86 aimsto demonstrate how floodplains can contributeto the sustainable management of water withinriver basins through effective cooperation andactive involvement of stakeholders. Such anapproach can be a model for mitigation offlood risk and effective implementation of theWater Framework Directive. One of thecomponents of the overall project is theSomerset Levels and Moors87 (a highlyregulated floodplain area in southwestEngland), which has focused on the basin ofthe river Parrett. Agriculture, floodmanagement and sea-level rise are among thekey issues in this basin.

The project aims to demonstrate methods andcombined approaches that have benefits formultiple sectoral interests. The main messageduring the process was that settlements andstrategic assets must be protected fromflooding in conjunction with ensuring thefuture of a farmed, freshwater, wetlandenvironment that restores and maintainsbiodiversity. The project has worked veryclosely with national and local managementauthorities related to water and environment.Participatory workshops were held toencourage stakeholders to share views andaddress problems jointly.

The ideas for improvement of floodmanagement were developed through agradual process, ensuring all organisations andsectors were involved equally. As a result,eleven potential solutions for managing flood

86 The ‘Wise Use of Floodplains’ project was a trans-nationalpartnership – led by the UK-based Royal Society for theProtection of Birds – involving government departments,research organisations and non-government organisations(including WWF) in six project areas throughout England,Ireland, Scotland and France. Five catchments were used asdemonstration sites to develop and test a range of techniquesfrom public participation through to the sustainabilityappraisals of floodplain management options. Cf.www.floodplains.org87 Fore more information see the ‘Wise Use ofFloodplains’ Somerset Levels and Moors ParrettCatchment case study at www.floodplains.org


49

events have been agreed. Each of thesesolutions or ‘components’ has involveddetailed analysis of policy barriers andopportunities, as well as appraisal of economiccosts and benefits. These importantcontributions to more integrated thinking wereachieved through use of an enhancedhydrological model and digital terrain modelsto predict potential floodwater storage and anup-to-date socio-economic profile of theParrett floodplain.

Another real benefit of the project is that theimplementation process has generated themost intensive debate on water management in30 years, leading to a new consensus betweenconservation, farming, drainage and ruralcommunity views. The future is now in thehands of all of the stakeholders involved, whohave shared responsibility for implementing anIntegrated Catchment Management Plan. Asthis project confirmed, the maintenance andfurther enhancement of stakeholder dialogue isessential to the long-term success ofecologically sustainable water management,including for flooding.

4.5- Conclusions

It is evident that ‘traditional’ floodmanagement strategies, based mostly onprotecting people and property by building‘flood control’ infrastructure, have generallyfailed to generate the safety that many hadthought would be provided. Furthermore,these strategies have left many wondering whysuch investments – thought previously to bethe only real solution – have failed to producebenefits equivalent to the money spent onthem. Many countries, regions, and localauthorities are now, therefore, consideringother options, which in most cases, takeadvantage of the natural environment.

WWF believes that the Water FrameworkDirective (WFD) has a crucial role to play inthis respect. By putting the focus on integratedriver basin management (IRBM) – and thusallowing for public participation of all relevant

stakeholders – it sets up a process in whichecological and sustainable measures for floodmanagement can be considered and put intopractice. The River Basin Management Plans(RBMPs), in which all measures necessary forachieving ‘good ecological status’ by 2015need to be defined, must be the umbrella plan,including measures for ecologicallysustainable flood management. The WFDCommon Implementation Strategy (WFD CIS)guidance documents, in particular thehorizontal guidance document Wetlands, andthe Best practices on flood protection,prevention and mitigation paper alsodeveloped in the context of the WFD CIS,should help with that task.

Thus, it would make no sense at all –economically, environmentally oradministratively – to develop and implement aseparate planning process for floodmanagement88 given that the outcomes arelikely to be less effective and less sustainable.Worse still, measures proposed under aseparate ‘flood plan’ might even become anobstacle for achieving the legally bidingobjective of under the WFD’s RBMP. Indeed,to avoid such a situation, any measuresdeveloped for managing flood risks and thatmight have a negative effect on theachievement of ‘good ecological and chemicalstatus’ must go through the requirements ofthe WFD RBMP planning process, includingderogation tests.

A single RBMP governing overall spatialintegration of all measures for sustainablewater management, including for flood(damage) protection, prevention andmitigation, will allow for more coherent,streamlined and strategic planning of the watermanagement problems affecting a given riverbasin and its population, including at thetransboundary level. This approach has beensupported by several internationalconferences/frameworks that have dealt withflooding issues, including documentation 88 As seems to be suggested by the European Commissionservices developing the Communication and ActionProgramme on ‘Flood prevention, protection and mitigation’


50

produced as part of the WFD CIS. As just oneexample, the Flemish government is followingthis recommended approach by integrating itsSigma-Plan into the WFD’s RBMP for theScheldt river (see section 4.3.1 above).

Other EU, international, national and locallegislation, plans, processes and initiativesfurther strengthen the case for a different typeof flood management; one that is ecologicallysustainable, based on ‘working with nature andnot against it’. This must involve planning forthe whole river basin – including storage ofwater in upland areas – and has been shown togenerate the greatest success when all relevantstakeholders are fully involved in the processat the earliest possible stage.


51

5. EU funding possibilities forecologically sustainable floodmanagement

5.1- EU Solidarity (emergency) Fund

Following the floods in Central and EasternEurope of summer 2002, the EuropeanCommission set up a new EU financialinstrument to grant emergency aid in the eventof major disasters. In an exceptionally shortperiod of only three months, a Regulationlaying down the implementation models of aEuropean Union Solidarity Fund89 wasadopted. This Fund applies directly to allMember States without the need fortransposition into national legislation, and hasbeen designed as a rapid response to recentfloods and as a mechanism for reactingquickly to future flood disasters, (alongsidefinance provided under the EU StructuralFunds). The Fund is accessible to current andfuture EU Member States and countries forwhich Accession negotiations are underway.In 2002 € 500 million were allocated to thisFund and it is expected that this amount willgrow to € 1 billion in subsequent years.

The Solidarity Fund is focused on givingimmediate financial assistance to help people,communities, regions and countries return tonormal living conditions as quickly as possiblein the event of a major natural, technologicalor environmental disaster. Its scope istherefore limited to covering the most urgentneeds. ‘Major disasters’ are those causingdamage valued at EUR 3 billion or more, orwhich represent more than 0.6% of the state’sgross national income. Besides this, and underexceptional circumstances, a disaster thataffects a substantial part of a region or state’spopulation shall also be considered as eligiblefor support. In this context, the Commissionand the European Investment Bank (EIB) willwork closely together.

89 Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November2002

The Fund provides financial aid90 for:

Immediate restoration to working order ofinfrastructure and plants/installations in thefields of energy, water and wastewater,telecommunications, transport, health andeducation.

Provision of rescue services and temporaryaccommodation to meet the needs of thepopulation concerned.

Immediate securing of flood-control/prevention infrastructure andmeasures for immediate protection ofcultural heritage.

Immediate clean-up of disaster zones,including natural areas.

The first investment aid from the SolidarityFund was provided during the CopenhagenConference in November 2002, whenagreements where made with Austria,Germany, Czech Republic and France. Ashighlighted in the table below, funding hasbeen invested, in line with Fund priorities,mainly into securing flood protection and rivermanagement facilities and energy supplies. Inother words, into more river regulation, dikesand dams...

90 For more information:http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/funds/solidar/solid_en.htm


52

Table 3- Member States severely affected by flooding events since August 2002 and their use of the EUSolidarity Fund financial allocations. Underlined are measures that promote an unsustainable, ‘business asusual’ approach to flood management

Country Measures supported through the EU Solidarity Fund Allocatedinvestments (2002)

Germany Reimbursement of aid operations Immediately securing flood protection facilities Repairing the waste water plants Restoring energy supplies, welfare infrastructure,

etc.

444 million Euro

Austria Partial reimbursement of expenditure for short-termrepair of damaged transport infrastructure andwater-supply plants,

Securing of river-management facilities, essentialsupplies to stricken populations, etc.

134 million Euro

Czech Republic Reimbursing expenditure on aid operations Securing flood-protection facilities

Repairing waste-water facilities Restoring energy and drinking water supplies as

well as transport infrastructure.

129 million Euro

France• Compensate costs linked to emergency operations 19.625 million Euro

This means that, in most places, the SolidarityFund money is going to support short-term,‘traditional’ structural measures, which havealready shown their shortcomings, instead ofexamining the extent to which “inadequateland-use and water management policies havecontributed to these problems”, as theEuropean Commission stated in itsCommunication91 in response to the 2002flood disaster. Thus, so far, investments aremuch more focused on emergency repairs fordamage to transport infrastructure, withoutconsideration of long-term strategies for floodcontrol. WWF shares the Member States’general concern that communication links andother vital infrastructure have to be restored,but it also needs to be recognised that in many

91 European Communication to the European Parliament andthe Council COM(2002) 481 The European CommunityResponse to the Flooding in Austria, Germany and SeveralApplicant Countries Brussels 28th August 2002.

areas the very same infrastructure hascontributed significantly to the catastrophicimpact of floods in the first place.

At the time, when details of the SolidarityFund where first being defined, WWF urgedthe European Commission and Europeancountries92 to consider the focus for this tooland to use it wisely. WWF believes that theapplication of the Solidarity Fund should avoidthe repetition of mistakes from the past anddeal with the root-causes of flooding ratherthan with the symptoms. Taking into accountthe fact that the Fund provides relatively largeinvestments over short periods of time,national governments should consider and

92 Through a Background Briefing paper Managing Floods inEurope: The answers already exist. More intelligent riverbasin management using wetlands can alleviate futureflooding events available athttp://www.panda.org/downloads/europe/managingfloodingbriefingpaper.pdf


53

select only the most effective (environmentallyand economically) flood-protection measures.The mere reconstruction of facilities andinfrastructure may be a waste of money andtime, and may also constitute an obstacle toimplementation of the WFD and the ultimateachievement of its objectives – a statutoryobligation on Member States. WWF considersthat access to the Fund should be conditionalon adoption of ecologically sustainable flood-management and risk-reduction strategies.Although it is a short-term tool intendedessentially for reconstruction, the relevantState authorities should be more forward-looking and identify more progressive andsustainable ways of using it. The SolidarityFund has to be regarded by both ‘donors’ and‘recipients’ as a means of adding value toflood prevention and protection in the future,and not only as a temporary measure toaddress present problems.

5.2- Regional Development Funds93

Flood (damage) prevention and protectioncannot be taken as a ‘stand alone’ issue butmust be considered and implemented inconjunction with sectoral policies of the EU.WWF is constantly emphasising theimportance of policy integration at EU level,which implies the need for integration ofenvironmental objectives and coherencebetween the major policies and financialinstruments that are the driving forces behindcurrent land- and water-use practices acrossEurope. This is very relevant to transportpolicy, the Structural Funds, and the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP) – the latter withregard to both production payments and ruraldevelopment measures.

These policies, as they are reformed over thecoming years and, in particular in view ofenlargement, must include clear obligations toensure coherence with the requirements of theWFD and to provide financial support (inparticular from the CAP) towards its 93 From the Structural Funds and the Common AgriculturePolicy

implementation. The revision of these majorpolicy areas should be regarded as animportant opportunity for the EU to correctwhat have proven to be the incorrectapproaches of the past and to increaseintegration with other policies. Only in such away will these policies work effectivelytogether and not impede each other’s goals andtargets – as is frequently the case at themoment. Note also that existing instruments,such as the Rural Development Regulation orthe Structural Funds are not being utilisedeffectively by Member States to meetenvironmental objectives enshrined in EUlegislation. This should be corrected in thecontext of policy/instrument revision.

Whilst the current CAP does not directly referto the objectives of the WFD or floodprevention and management several of theexisting CAP instruments, especially under theRural Development Regulation, allow formeasures that can already be used indirectly tosupport such activities. Unfortunately,however, the prevalent approach of both theCommission and the Member States is toprovide financial compensation aid toagriculture in the form of state subsidies. “TheCommunity rules on state aid in agricultureand fisheries stipulate that, where a naturaldisaster can be proven, compensation can beconsidered compatible with the commonmarket provided it does not lead to over-compensation for the damage suffered”94. Aidis disbursed from national funds and theprimary objective is always to restoreproduction potential, e.g. through thereplanting of trees, crops, or repairing damageto property.

From this it is clear that financial aid isavailable to address problems related toflooding, and that current policies provide auseful framework within which to address thisissue. It is also clear that the strategy chosenis still to ‘manage’ the impact of floods ratherthan prevent damaging floods from occurringin the first place. However, the EU’s financial 94 DG Agriculture, Agricultural News Digest, 19 September2002


54

instruments can be applied from differentperspectives and with different objectives inmind. It all depends on the view of nationaland local governments, the opportunities theyare prepared to take up and the investmentdecisions they make. The policy andlegislative tools and funding mechanisms arethere. On one hand, greater efforts are neededto ensure that all decision-makers are fullyaware of the existing options; on the otherhand, it is a question of political will to showleadership and forward thinking.

What follows is a general assessment of someEU policies and financial instruments forregional development, explaining why/howthey could be used for ecologically sustainableflood management.

5.2.1- Structural Funds

The priority objectives under the StructuralFunds95 require Member States and AccessionCountries to ensure that operation of the fundsis in harmony with the requirements ofenvironmental protection and in conformitywith Community policies and actions. Thismust include, for example, evaluation ofenvironmental impacts of major projects.Both Community initiatives established by theStructural Funds Regulation, namely Leader+and Interreg III, have potential for contributingto floodplain restoration projects and IRBM.Interreg is a Community initiative for thesupport of “cross-border, trans-national andinterregional co-operation intended toencourage the harmonious, balanced andsustainable development of the wholeCommunity area”, that is particularly relevantto management of rivers crossing two or morecountries.Leader+ aims to “encourage and help ruralactors to think about the longer-term potentialof their area” and “seeks to encourage theimplementation of integrated high quality,original strategies for sustainable development

95 The European Regional Fund (ERDF), the European SocialFund, the European Agricultural Guidance and GuaranteeFund (EAGGF), Guidance Section, and the FinancialInstruments for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG)

designed to encourage experimenting withnew ways of (inter alia) enhancing the naturaland cultural heritage”. All rural areas areeligible, although Member States may chooseto limit the application of Leader+ to specificareas identified on the basis of clear criteria.Leader+ takes a ‘bottom-up’ approachrequiring the development and implementationof projects by ‘local action groups’ (LAGs).Among the “priority themes which theCommission considers to be of special interestat Community level are making the best use ofnatural and cultural resources, includingenhancing the value of sites of Communityinterest selected under Natura 2000”. Therewould appear to be significant potential forinnovative floodplain restoration projects to beconsidered for Leader+ funding, especiallywhere trans-regional and trans-nationalprojects are concerned96.

Nevertheless, these options still remainoverlooked. The Structural Funds could beused to co-finance some measures thatcontribute to flood prevention and mitigationat the same time as helping to ensurecompatibility with the WFD and its integratedriver basin management (IRBM) approach.This is particularly the case with regard to theuse of EU funding to promote non-structuralmeasures for flood prevention, such as wetlandand floodplain protection and restoration. As aconsequence, the EU needs to guarantee thatthe revision of the Structural Funds contributesto halting and reversing ecosystem loss anddegradation caused by the misuse of thesesame funds. Investments need to be divertedaway from heavy infrastructure for flood‘control’ and ‘protection’ to those designed,for example, to make more space available forrivers by reconnecting them with floodplainsand wetlands97. It is up to forward-looking 96 Jones, T.; 2000; Policy and Economic Analysis ofFloodplain Restoration in Europe – Opportunities andObstacles. WWF European Freshwater Programme Reportavailable athttp://www.floodplains.org.uk/pdf/other_reports/Policy%20and%20Economic%20Analysis%20-%20Tim%20Jones.pdf97 For more information Structural Funds in an Enlarged EU:Learning from the Past - Looking to the Future. WWFEuropean Policy Office. Available athttp//:www.panda.org/epo


55

governments, river basin authorities and NGOsto promote such investments and to seek theirfuture enhancement.

The Commission Communication on TheStructural Funds and their coordination withthe Cohesion Fund. Revised indicativeguidelines (COM 2003, 499 final) is a goodfirst step in this direction, specifically when itmentions in relation to the WFD, that “…whilespecific measures targeted at waste-watertreatment and drinking water provision willcontinue to be a priority [under the StructuralFunds support], such actions must be seen aspart of an overall strategy for ensuring theecological status and chemical quality in theentire river basin [as required by the WFD].Integrated programmes for river basinmanagement, including the development of themanagement plans foreseen under the WFDwill also be eligible for support.” This meansthat a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP)prepared under the WFD, and all associatedanalyses (e.g. of pressures and impacts) andcharacterisation can be co-financed by the EU.This should help to eliminate lack of fundingas a credible reason for Member States todelay river basin characterisation, and shouldalso be an incentive to look at alternatives totraditional flood management infrastructure.

5.2.2- Cohesion Fund/ISPA

The Cohesion Fund98 is intended to provideadditional funds for Member States whosegross national product falls below 90% of theCommunity average for large-scaleinfrastructure and environmental projects witha theoretically balanced expenditure over thesetwo sectors. In practice, however, mostexpenditure has been allocated to transport andtelecommunication infrastructure. A similarscenario is noticed in Accession Countrieswhile applying the ISPA99 financial instrumentthat provides support for environmental andtransport infrastructure measures. ISPAincludes environmental priorities focused on

98 Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/199999 Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession forperiod 2000-2006,Council Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999

improving water quality and offers a uniqueopportunity to support the development ofsustainable alternatives for water management,including for flooding. However, the ISPAexcludes small projects to be undertaken at alocal and regional level by setting highthresholds of € 5 million and supporting large-scale infrastructure projects. This limit shouldbe lowered100.

After the catastrophic floods of 2002, theCommission allocated up to € 48 million to theCzech Republic, and several million more tothe Slovak Republic, from unallocated 2002ISPA money under more favourable andflexible conditions. The ISPA Regulationprovides that under exceptional circumstances,the Commission will increase the ceiling onpublic aid to 75% and the Communitycontribution to 85% for relevant projects inareas affected by exceptional naturaldisasters101. The finances are to be used forrepairing transport links (i.e railways, roads,motorways and bridges) and water treatmentplants in the affected regions. Though suchrepairs are clearly needed, unless considerationis given to use of ecologically sustainableflood prevention measures, the rebuilding ofexisting infrastructure may actually lead tofurther loss of life, property and money.

WWF believes that nature protection andsustainable use of natural resources should beclearly recognised as priorities for EU funding.Therefore, the European Commission shouldguarantee to promote opportunities underexisting EU financial instruments to supportWFD implementation, and in particular toprotect, enhance, and restore wetlands andfloodplains. Pre-Accession investmentpriorities also need to be examined to ensurethat the integrity of floodplain functions andvalues in Accession Countries is respected –especially given that a high proportion ofEurope’s remaining natural areas are found in

100 For more information “WWF Briefing Paper on ISPA”.WWF-European Policy Office, Belgium. Available athttp://www.panda.org/downloads/europe/ispabriefing2002.pdf101 For more information http://www.evropska-unie.cz/eng/news.asp?year=2002&month=8


56

central and eastern Europe. Special attentionshould be given to the potential impacts ofproposed new road and waterwaydevelopments that may significantly increasethe occurrence, duration and impacts ofdamaging floods.

5.3- Common Agricultural Policy

The Rural Development Regulation102 (RDR),covering the period 2000–2006 states that “aprominent role should be given to agri-environment instruments to support thesustainable development of rural areas and torespond to society’s increasing demand forenvironmental services”. Indeed, agri-environment measures still represent the onlycompulsory element within the ‘menu’ of ruraldevelopment instruments. Agri-environmentpayments are land-based payments made on anannual basis. They are not the only relevantinstruments for flood prevention andmanagement. ‘Less Favoured Areas’compensation, aid for afforestration offarmland that includes support for wetlandrestoration, extensive farming and reversion ofarable land to grasslands can all be targeted tomake more space for natural watermanagement.

Nevertheless, the potential of theseinstruments is limited by the relatively smallbudget available to the RDR in comparisonwith the huge investments going into marketsubsidies (10% for the former, 90% for thelatter). Of the € 4 billion available annuallyfor rural development, approximately half isavailable for the above-listed instrumentscombined. Approximately € 40 billion peryear is spent on market subsidies. These arepaid for entirely from the EU budget withoutnational co-financing. These subsidiescontinue to favour intensification andconsequent loss and degradation offunctioning floodplains. An importantachievement in developing the RDR was theinclusion of ‘modulation’, i.e. a shift of

102 Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999

funding within each Member State from thefirst (‘common market’) CAP pillar, to thesecond (RDR) CAP pillar, effectivelyincreasing the budget for RDR. So far,Member States have shown little willingnessto apply modulation in practice. It is up togovernments and regional authorities to usethe RDR to promote measures for co-financingof WFD implementation and, thereby, ofintegrated river basin management andassociated improvements to land and wateruse.

In the framework of the EU accession process,the SAPARD103 programme was established toprovide Accession Countries with support foragriculture and rural development. Measuresproposed by the Commission for inclusion ineach country’s Rural Development Planinclude support for agri-environment schemes(AES) and investments into forestry.However, in many cases, Accession Countrieshave only decided to implement AES due tolong and persistent lobbying by WWF and itspartners. The agri-environment budgetallocations defined by the relevant ministriesare tiny in comparison with investments foragricultural production (on average, 3% oftotal budget) and this significantly limits ‘onthe ground’ benefits. Moreover, the measuresfor the period 2000-2006 were selectedwithout any real consideration of theirpotential contribution to implementation ofother EU policies/legislation, particularly theWFD, which have to be implemented uponaccession.

Under the existing rules, SAPARD does notprovide for any specific provisions relating toactions in the wake of natural disasters.Nonetheless, in the autumn of 2002, followingsevere floods in the Czech and SlovakRepublics, the European Commissionproposed that the ceiling on public aidallocated under SAPARD should increasefrom 50 to 75%, and the EU contribution from75 to 85% of public aid for relevant projects in 103 Special Action for Pre-Accession Measures for Agricultureand Rural Development, Council Regulation (EC) No268/1999


57

areas affected by natural disasters. Thisclearly relied, however, on the willingness ofthe national authorities to use the measuresavailable to them and to provide the requiredlevels of national co-financing.

The Working Document on The WaterFramework Directive (WFD) and tools withinthe Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) tosupport its implementation104, produced by theEuropean Commission Directorate General forEnvironment, is a good source of furtherinformation on how the CAP could promoteecologically sustainable flood management.This paper explains the interaction betweenagriculture and water and corresponding EUpolicies. While the paper is mainly related tothe ‘Agenda 2000’ and 2003 CAP reforms. Itis significant in that it promotes alignment ofthe measures planned under the RuralDevelopment policy and the WFD.

5.4- LIFE-III

Funding under LIFE–Nature105 targetsmanagement measures for Natura2000 sitesand conservation measures for species bothinside and outside these sites. LIFE–Environment covers a wider range ofenvironmental projects with the aim ofpromoting sustainable development. Theseshould include innovative and demonstrableactions for industry; examples, promotion andtechnical assistance actions for localauthorities; and preparatory actions to supportcommunity legislation and policies, alsoindirectly related to flood protection.Restoration and maintenance of key habitatsand species to favourable status is an objectiveof the Habitats Directive itself, which includes 104 Available from the European Commission’s intranet(CIRCA) at:http://forum.europa.eu.int/irc/DownLoad/m6ZvH5G1kfI2fqYmhIspAam3RppMkOfS/zMqw8BcGer6YRxosB1ZGeDfsLJ_2bjhp/eSGGkeZSp14g6BR0dmAdEdPvKUqTc9Yd/1GjtI/3.2%20-%20FWD%20and%20Agriculture.doc .To gain access tothis web page please contact: [email protected] LIFE = Financial Instrument for the Environment –L’Instrument Financier pour l’Environnement. Applicable toMember States, Accession countries and other countriesbordering the Baltic and Mediterranean regions

also floodplains and wetlands. Article 2.2 ofthe Habitats Directive, dealing withrestoration, should be read in conjunction witharticle 6.1, dealing with conservationmeasures106. This demonstrates the scope ofthe Directive for favouring measures thatrestore and rehabilitate, as well as maintain,the river ecosystem and its processes, and thusmitigate and prevent floods.

Nevertheless, the budget for LIFE isminuscule in comparison with money beingspent on CAP and Structural/Cohesion Funds.Moreover, much of the funding is restricted touse at Natura2000 sites and provided in theform of one-off grants, which can only initiatebut not complete long-term restorationprojects, and which cannot meet ongoingmanagement costs.

5.5- Phare

The Phare programme priorities are directedtowards preparatory support for AccessionCountries to assist institution building andinvestment. Investment is targeted towardsbringing major infrastructure up toCommunity standards, particularly in the fieldsof environment, transport, and industry. Phareoffers opportunities for environmentalmeasures such as maintenance of extensiveagriculture on floodplains, or conservation andrestoration of floodplain wetlands to regulatewater quality in rural areas with lowpopulation densities.

Moreover, Accession Countries haveidentified compliance with EU waterlegislation as a short- to medium-term priority,providing opportunities for promoting the roleof floodplains in regulating water quality andquantity. However, this opportunity is notsufficiently taken up. In terms of agricultureand regional development, governments of 106 Jones, T.; 2000; Policy and Economic Analysis ofFloodplain Restoration in Europe – Opportunities andObstacles. WWF European Freshwater Programme Reportavailable athttp://www.floodplains.org.uk/pdf/other_reports/Policy%20and%20Economic%20Analysis%20-%20Tim%20Jones.pdf


58

Accession Countries are liable to attachpriority to conventional agriculturalintensification, traditional infrastructureapproaches to flood management and majortransport/communications infrastructureprojects, leaving little for use on trulysustainable measures107.

In response to the floods of 2002, theEuropean Commission made an immediateprovision to the Czech Republic of anadditional € 9.75 million from the Phare 2003reserve and under more flexible conditions108.The Czech government also reallocated fundsunder the National Phare Programmes for2001 and 2002 and launched relevant grantschemes. Under the first Phare flood-relatedgrant scheme, regional authorities submittedtheir proposals for the repair andreconstruction of local transport andenvironmental infrastructure, environmentalprotection facilities, and supply systems forwater, gas and electricity. Other schemes wereoriented towards NGO volunteer help andcross-border cooperation109.

It is evident, that damages to vitalcommunications links and other infrastructureneed to be repaired. Yet when setting uppriorities for the use of flood-related funds,national governments need to recognise that,in many areas, transport corridors arethemselves factors amplifying floods and thatflood (damage) protection and preventionneeds investments into long-term, sustainablesolutions.

107 Jones, T.; 2000; Policy and Economic Analysis ofFloodplain Restoration in Europe – Opportunities andObstacles. WWF European Freshwater Programme Reportavailable athttp://www.floodplains.org.uk/pdf/other_reports/Policy%20and%20Economic%20Analysis%20-%20Tim%20Jones.pdf108 The European Community response to the Flooding inAustria, Germany and several applicant Countries. Asolidarity-based initiative-European Union Helps MobiliseCivil Society Flood Relief . COM(2002) 481 final, Brussels,28.8.2002.109 For more information see http://www.evropska-unie.cz/eng/news.asp?year=2002&month=8

5.6- Others

Further information on EU financialinstruments suitable for funding ecologicallysustainable flood management can be found inthe Handbook for Environmental ProjectFunding recently published by the EuropeanCommission Directorate General forEnvironment110.

The stated objectives of this handbook are:“…to increase the capacity of individuals andorganisations to engage in issues of localgovernance through involvement in projectsleading to environmental enhancement andsustainable development at the local level.The goal of the handbook is to increasecapacity for undertaking local environmentalinterventions by helping individuals andorganisations gain access to key informationon the funding instruments dedicated toenvironmental improvement. (...) If you arean officer or a member of a municipality, anNGO, a business, a governmental or non-governmental institution or a concernedindividual, working or involved in theactivities of environmental protection,improvement or education, then this guide isfor you.”

The Handbook provides a fact-sheet for eachenvironmentally-relevant EU fundingmechanism, detailing in each case:

• The title of the instrument: e.g. CohesionFund

• The time frame for its application• Its general/overarching/strategic objectives• The types of actions that can be financed• ‘Good practice’ examples of current

financing• Geographic coverage• Eligible organisations• The EU legal basis, i.e. reference to

different EU legislative tools• Contact points in the Commission and

elsewhere 110 This is available athttp://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/funding/handbook_2004.pdf


59

• Useful links to sources of furtherinformation

The Handbook provides information that couldbe very useful to everyone (whether MemberStates or NGOs) seeking to develop plans forecologically sustainable flood managementand looking for ways to support themfinancially.

5.7- Conclusions

As with policy and legislative tools, an arrayof EU funding instruments suitable forpromoting ecologically sustainable floodmanagement already exists. These range fromthe use of the Structural Funds under thenewly revised Indicative Guidelines, to RuralDevelopment measures under the CAP, toLIFE funding under EU environmentallegislation.

All of these already contain provisions thatallow Member States to strive forsustainability, helping not only to cope withthe effects of floods when they happen, butalso – and most importantly – changingcurrent water- and land-use practices at river-basin level to prevent severe flood damage inthe future. Currently, huge sums of tax-payers’ money are wasted by spending severaltimes over; first causing increased flooddamage, then trying to treat the symptoms,rather than the causes. For example, an EU ornational subsidy is given to support intensiveagriculture in a former floodplain even thoughthis will increases the risk and severity offlooding. Additional money is then needed torepair flood damage. After several cases ofsevere flooding, more money is spent onengineered ‘flood protection’ measures such asnew dikes.

The opportunities to use EU fundingsustainably are there for Member States andregional and local authorities to grab. It comesdown to a question of political will to promotebetter integration of the major EU-fundedpolicies affecting water and land use (e.g.

agriculture, transport, regional development,environment). The EU institutions shouldstrive for integration to happen ‘at source’, i.e.when the funding mechanisms and budgetlines and their relation to EU policies are beingdeveloped or revised. Only in this way willdamaging conflict or overlap at a later stage beprevented.


60


61

6. Overview of policyrecommendations forecologically sustainable floodmanagement

1. European public authorities at all levelsneed to realise that mismanagement ofhuman activities influencing land andwater use at the river basin level –including destruction of floodplains andwetlands, river fragmentation (e.g. cuttingoff meanders), and changes in land-usepatterns – as well as global warming, havesignificantly contributed to increases in thefrequency, extent, intensity and impacts offlood events during the last decade.

2. Public authorities and the population atlarge, across Europe, both need to beaware that flooding is a natural – and insome ways beneficial – process that willcontinue to occur. They also need to faceup to the high probability that future floodevents will have an ever greater destructivepotential if the current trend for fightingagainst nature is not reversed and globalwarming is not properly addressed.Responding effectively to this scenariowill require a long-term vision for flood(damage) prevention, protection andmitigation, including the implementationof measures that can deliver the desiredresults (security for people, property,goods and the environment) by actuallyaddressing the root causes of damagingfloods and not just the symptoms.

3. Public authorities and the population atlarge cannot continue to disregard theimportant role that natural systems play inflood (damage) prevention, protection andmitigation – for example, through thenatural water-holding capacities ofwetlands, floodplains, and upland areas.There needs to be a realisation andunderstanding that traditional floodmanagement strategies – mostly based on

engineering infrastructure for theimmediate protection of people, propertyand goods – have failed to deliver the long-term security they promised. Furthermore,if floods are to be managed properly in thefuture, all-encompassing ‘integrated’approaches, which give higher priority tonon-structural (nature-related) measures,are needed. Only then will there be a shiftaway from the traditional short-termparadigm of engineered ‘flood defences’ toecologically sustainable floodmanagement.

4. The EU institutions and the Member Statesneed to realise and act upon the need forIntegrated River Basin Management(IRBM), which is the internationallyrecognised vehicle to deliver flood(damage) protection, prevention andmitigation. This is because IRBM takesproper account of environmental carryingcapacity, long-term functioning ofecosystems, maintenance of biodiversity,joint assessment of the needs andexpectations of all ‘water stakeholders’ ata basin-wide level, and the need to basefinal decisions on the best possibleinformation. IRBM is now also the legalbasis for water management across Europebecause it is enshrined in the WaterFramework Directive (WFD). This offersEuropean governments and regional andlocal authorities a ‘window of opportunity’for making strategic decisions about watermanagement – including floodmanagement – that are economically,socially and ecologically sustainable. Thisopportunity to reduce human and financiallosses as a result of severe flood eventsmust not be missed.

5. EU countries are obliged to use the WFD’sRiver Basin Management Plans for thedefinition of all measures necessary toachieve ‘good ecological and chemicalstatus’ by 2015. This is also stronglyencouraged in the case of transboundaryriver basins. ‘All measures’ should


62

include those required to achieveecologically sustainable flood (damage)prevention, protection and mitigation.National governments and regional/localauthorities need to realise and act on thefact that there should not be two parallelplanning systems - for water managementon one hand and flood management on theother - but rather a single, integrated andstrategic plan covering all the water-related issues in given river basin,including flood damage. The WFD RiverBasin Management Plan is that single,integrated and strategic plan – a conclusionclearly supported by Article 13.5 of theWFD. Developing a separate ‘flood plan’for those flood management measures thatare part of wider water management makesno sense economically or administratively(given the high chance that the sameunder-resourced and under-staffedadministration would be responsible fordeveloping and implementing both plans).Worse still, measures under a separate‘flood plan’ could have negatively impactson the ecological and chemical status ofwater bodies, thus becoming obstacles toachieving the legally biding objectives ofthe WFD.

6. EU countries at all levels need to make themost of existing EU policy tools andfunding mechanisms to help the move toecologically sustainable flood managementstrategies. They need to realise that thereare current financial opportunities offeredby different funding mechanisms under,inter alia, the EU’s environment (e.g.LIFE), regional (e.g. newly revisedIndicative Guidelines for the StructuralFunds), and agricultural policies (e.g. someRural Development measures under theCommon Agriculture Policy). The WFDalso offers policy support for such achange and can help push further shaping

of EU funding objectives towardsecologically sustainable floodmanagement.

7. The EU institutions should strive forincreasing the integration between allpolicies affecting water and land use (e.g.agriculture, transport, regionaldevelopment, environment) ‘at source’, i.e.when EU funding mechanisms and budgetlines and their relation to EU policies arebeing developed or revised. This wouldhelp to maximise opportunities forecologically sustainable flood managementand to reduce potentially damagingconflict or overlap at a later stage.

8. The EU, Member States, regional and localauthorities must realise that, from now on,the success or failure of their flood(damage) prevention, protection andmitigation strategies will be measured notonly in terms of capacity to provideimmediate relief and support to humanpopulations, but also by their ability andwillingness to plan ahead, and to developand implement ecologically sustainableflood management strategies that make fulluse of nature’s ability to prevent andreduce floods. This new approach can belargely implemented with existing EUpolicy and funding tools, will save tax-payers money and will provide additionalbenefits in terms of employment,recreation, and biodiversity conservation.It marks a decisive break from thetraditional (but false) belief that onlybigger or higher ‘flood protection’infrastructure can guarantee the safety ofpeople, property and goods.


Annex 1- Key causes for excessive flooding - floodplain degradationAdapted from: Jones, T.; 2000; Wise Use of Floodplains: Policy and Economic Analysis of FloodplainRestoration in Europe. WWF. Pp 37.

Sector Key factor causing deterioration Remark on European situation

Agriculture • Drainage and irrigation systems• Dike construction• Water abstraction• Fertiliser and pesticide use• Landscape simplification

• Biggest obstacles to floodplainrestoration

• Irrigation dams are a major threat• Land privatisation and abandonment

are major factors

Forestry • Deforestation and loss of vegetation inheadwater basins

• Local damage to forests• Conversion of meadows• Replacement of natural and semi-natural

riparian forests with intensive plantations

• Remains a locally significant threat,though less widespread than formerly

Transport • Navigation channels• Road and railway construction• Drainage and diking• Landscape fragmentation

• Most larger and many smallerfloodplains have already been heavilymodified

• Transport infrastructure projects in the1980 and 1990 adversely affectedmany floodplains

• Major rivers and floodplainsthreatened by road rail and canalprojects in EU accession countries

Energy • Hydroelectric power dams• Electricity lines• Power stations• Mining

• Most large rivers regulated manysmaller rivers unregulated

• Massive recent expansion in reservoirs(e.g. Spain and Turkey)

• Very few large rivers remainingunregulated

Tourism andRecreation

• Floodplain development• Leisure development• Local problems of excessive number of

peoples degrading floodplain

• Strong pressure from use by multipleleisure interest groups

• Limited future development could beacceptable if done sustainably

Urban andIndustrial

Developmentand

ExtractiveIndustry

• Construction of dams and dikes• Draining of land for new development• Waste disposal pollution• Ground and surface water abstraction• Disturbance• Gravel extraction• Mining waste

• • High population density means major

impacts on water quality and quantityand direct loss of floodplains due toconstruction

• Especially strong impacts on coastalfloodplains

• Many industrial and urban centres andmost rural settlements lack adequatewaste treatment

• Gravel extraction has had a majorimpact on floodplains since 1950’s

• Huge threats from mining waste


ClimateChange

• Changing rainfall patterns• Rising sea levels eroding coastal

floodplains

• Increased risk of desertificationmeans increased importance offloodplain wetlands

• Major threat from acceleratedcoastal erosion around North Sea

WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experiencedindependent conservation organisations, with almost 5million supporters and a global network active in over 96countries.

WWF’s mission is to stop degradation of the planet’snatural environment and to build a future in whichhumans live in harmony with nature, by:

- conserving the world’s biological diversity- ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources

is sustainable- promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful

consumption

Living Waters ProgrammeWWF International

c/o WWF European Policy Office36 Avenue de Tervuren, box 121040 Brussels, Belgium

©1986, W

WF-W

orld Wide Fund For N

ature (Formerly W

orld Wildlife Fund) ®

WW

F Registered Tradem

ark

Documents

WWF Policy Briefing: Living with Floods