Post on 11-Jan-2016
description
Flood risks – do we manage them? Challenges & perspectives in the light of the upcoming
implementation of the EU-Directive
NGO-experiences from Germany
Foto: Ernst Paul Dörfler
CIS WG Floods meeting
Brussels, 19th of October 2007
Dr. Gerhard TimmBund für Umwelt und Naturschutz
Deutschland (BUND) e.V.
Challenges to be solved
1997-2006 (Europe)
• 5 extreme flood events which normally
occure every 100 years (on avarage)
• > ½ million citizens affected
• > 700 citizens died
• ca. 25 billion Euro (assured) damage
• ca. 11 billion Euro damage in Germany
(> 9 billion on Elbe river in 2002)
Floods – only an undesireable event?
• typical for natural water courses and river
landscapes
• essential for floodplains & their functions
(biodiversity, good drinking water..)
• flood damage is mainly driven by the
homo sapience
Main reasons for damaging flood events - „insights“ from Germany (1995)
• shortening or other hydromorphological
modifications of the rivers & cutting off wetlands
• the accumulation of assets in natural flooding
zones
• reduced awareness of risks/ false sense of security
• unsustainable land & water uses in the
catchment area
• the consequences of anthropogenic climate change
• insufficient flood management
The loss of hydromophological water quality as an „indicator“ for flood damage risks …
2%19%
46%
33%
no impact
little modifications
servere modification
significantly orcompletely modified
The structure of water courses in Germany Source: LAWA 2000
…and WFD failure
Situation of the river water bodies in Germany (probability to achieve good ecological status in 2015) Source: BMU 2004
12%achieves objective
26%unclear
62%at risk
„..hydromorphological intereferences are the most frequent reason why many (surface)
water bodies probably won‘t achieve the WFD objectives..“
(national report, 2005)
Drivers for hydromorphological alterations of water bodies & wetlands
• settlements, industrial plants and transport infrastruccture on the floodplains and wetlands
• unsustainable farming & forestry
• constructions & activities for unsustainable navigation
• hydropower plants
• (technical) flood management infrastructure
Elbe River Basin – one example
Interferences in the water balance & runoff
Elbe-River:
• shortening by 120 km (- 10% of the total length)
• > 1000 km dykes
• reduction of wetlands down to 838 km² (- 86,2%)
Elbe-Basin:
• > 500 km dykes on tributary streams
• > 10.000 dams
• > 50% of the area is used for arable farming and settlements
3 approaches for flood management
• the ecologically sound approach
• the technical approach
• awareness & information
-> all are important but it is essential to apply them in the right „hierarchy“ (awareness rising – work with/for nature – technical approach as the last resort)
The German approach of Flood management
• divided competencies – role of communities/
states
• 90‘s : first approaches of coordination
(Rhine, LAWA-Guideline)
• 3 pillar approach: natural retention,
technical & precautionary measures
• Flood action programm (2002)
- „Room for the rivers“
• German Flood Act as one outcome (2005)
Similiarities between the German Flood Act & the EU Flood Directive
• risk assessment
• mapping of risk/ flooding areas
• plans and measures to reduce the risk
• management cycle & public participation
establishment of flooding areas until 2012
in principle prohibitionfor new settlements
dyke relocation andfloodplain
protection/ restorationas binding components
Additional positive provisions in the
German Flood Act
Main open issues within the Flood Act (I)
• outcome reflects the severe divergent interests in the framework of the legislative deliberations
• crucial issues have been fallen out & delegated to the states
- effective control of erosion caused by arable farming (greenland)
- entirely prevent new settlements in flooding areas
- restrict buildings & use of hazardous substances in flood risk areas
- clear preference for ecologically sound flood measures
- guarantee active public involvement when establishing flood plans
„principle of flexibility“
Main open issues within the Flood Act (II)
• aspects which allow most flexibility (no issue at all)
- coordination and integration within the WFD framework (prioritization)
- clear objectives (eg. floodplain restoration)
- sufficient competencies & requirements for the national
government
Similiarities between Flood Act & EU-Flood Directive:
- role of ecologically sound measures?- role of WFD objectives?
Challenges at the national level for the implementation of the Floods Act
• a gap of a (consistent) integrative strategy
• subsidies for technical flood management (share of 60%)
• efforts in agriculture, navigation, energy, envi-fees?
• diverge from flood provisions in 2009 (federalism reform)
Main shortcomings at the state‘s level (I) –legal transposition/ drafts
• no transposition in time (only two states so far) and sufficient fullfillment of the legal mandate
• definition of flooding areas varies (also polders etc.)
• agriculture profits - no greeland provisions/ conversion possible
• some deteriorations (floodplain forests)
• definition of flood risk areas & measures mostly unclear
• flood plans: insufficient „1:1“ approach (=„copy & pace“) – participation, role of floodplains and WFD remains mostly unclear
Main challenges at the state‘s level for implementation
• focus on technical measures & rebuildings in risk areas
- eg. Oder River (BB): 130 of 160 km dykes have been restored
- „Elbe resolution“ (2006): 45% of the dykes will be upgraded
- Bavaria & Baden Württemberg: upgrade of dikes & dams as
climate adaptation strategie (15+ x%)
• intended restoration of floodplains is insignificant: < 4% of total possible retention area (Elbe, Danube)
• .. and fails: in BB only 5% of the promised floodplains have been
restored
• no consistent WFD implementation (HMWB, economics)
Main challenges at the state‘s level (I))
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Technicalmeasures
ecologicalmeasures
Expenditure for flood management in 3 German
states
Ratio technical and ecological flood
management measures
SN LS BY
Not all is bad – tentative positive aspects
• initiative for a national floodplain action plan (& with objectives) in the context of the biodiversity strategy
• flood plain is binding for other sector plans (BB)
• coordination with WFD within the first cycle (SH)
• the provision for green land farming (SN)
Conclusions – overall recommendations
• flexibility can be useful, but it is crucial to ensure a
consistent & EU wide clear approach
• role of natural buffer zones is very important
• envi-economical approach – let the economy work for a sustainable approach
• compliance & prioritization of the WFD-objectives (starting with the first cycle)
Recommended instruments and procedures
• an EU-wide action programm for wetlands in 2009 with clear objectives
• CIS recommendations for WFD integration (first cycle)
• clear technical formats for reporting schemes with special focus on flood plains
• EU-funding (CAP, TEN-T, Regional Funds) in compliance with a sustainable flood management
• enhance research and exchange for an ecologically sound flood management
• use WISE for more transparency
Thanks for your attention.
Dr. Gerhard TimmBund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V.
Gerhard.Timm@bund.netwww.bund.net