Flood risks – do we manage them?

1. Flood risks – do we manage them? Challenges & perspectives in the light of the upcoming implementation of the EU-Directive NGO-experiences from Germany CIS WG Floods meeting Brussels, 19th of October 2007 Dr. Gerhard Timm Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND) e.V. Foto: Ernst Paul Dörfler

2. 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)

3. 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

4. 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

5. The loss of hydromophological water quality as an „indicator“ for flood damage risks … The structure of water courses in GermanySource: LAWA 2000

6. …and WFD failure „..hydromorphological intereferences are the most frequent reason why many (surface) water bodies probably won‘t achieve the WFD objectives..“ (national report, 2005) Situation of the river water bodies in Germany (probability to achieve good ecological status in 2015) Source: BMU 2004

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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)

10. 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)

11. Similiarities between the German Flood Act & the EU Flood Directive Additional positive provisions in the German Flood Act • 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 prohibition for new settlements  dyke relocation and floodplain protection/ restoration as binding components

12. 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“

13. 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?

14. 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)

15. Main shortcomings at the state‘s level (I) –legal transposition/ drafts • no transposition in time (only two states sofar) 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

16. 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)

17. Main challenges at the state‘s level (I)) Expenditure for flood management in 3 German states Ratio technical and ecological flood management measures SN LS BY

18. 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)

19. 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)

20. 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

21. Thanks for your attention. Dr. Gerhard Timm Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. Gerhard.Timm@bund.net www.bund.net