EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans - Main contents

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier	COM(2019)95 - Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin ...
document	COM(2019)95
date	February 26, 2019

agreement is in place, often also an international coordinating body and, less frequently, a joint RBMP. Only few basins in the EU have none of these.

Overall, compared to the first cycle, governance structures were further formalised, international RBMPs increasingly developed and comparability of findings improved as did the compatibility of approaches in response to pressures.

4.3Issues which could not be dealt with at Member State level

The WFD Article 12 procedure for issues which cannot be dealt with at Member State level was invoked once. In 2016 Denmark stressed that, to meet the WFD objectives, other Member States need to take action to reduce their nitrogen load in shared water bodies. Asked to intervene, the Commission stressed that Member States are primarily responsible to secure WFD objectives and noted that Article 3 envisages coordination within RBDs, including international ones. It suggested to first exhaust bilateral cooperation opportunities including under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

FD - findings from first FRMPs

5.1    Assessment at national level

Human choices, historic but also still widespread today, have a significant effect on the occurrence and impacts from flooding ¹⁹ and there is evidence that the number of large flood events has increased over the years. ²⁰ Projections are a cause for concern; under a no-adaptation scenario (i.e. assuming continuation of the current protection against river floods up to a current 100-year event), damages in the EU from the combined effect of climate and socioeconomic change are projected to rise from EUR 6.9 billion/year to EUR 20.4 billion/year by the 2020s, EUR 45.9 billion/year by the 2050s, and EUR 97.9 billion/year by the 2080s. ²¹ It is therefore logical that 27 out of 28 Member States included floods as a main risk in their national risk assessments. ²²

Establishing FRMPs, a management tool employed for the reduction of potential adverse consequences from flooding, was the third step of the cyclical approach to flood risk management introduced by the FD. Previously, Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments ²³ were undertaken (in 2011) and Flood Hazard and Risk Maps prepared (in 2013) by the Member States.

In terms of completeness, almost all Member States reported the conclusions of their Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and Flood Hazard and Risk Maps in their FRMPs. All Member States set objectives for the management of flood risks, and in 20 of 26 Member States assessed, these are at the national level or by adapting national level objectives to regional/local circumstances. Some set a few broad objectives, others presented a larger number of more detailed ones. All Member States included measures for achieving the objectives. However, not all objectives are sufficiently elaborated to allow for implementation monitoring and not all measures are clearly linked to objectives; taken together, these deficiencies may pose a challenge for the second cycle (2016-21), when Member States are expected to assess progress.

The number of measures varies significantly across Member States, ranging from few individual measures to thousands of measure groups. About 50% of measures relate to prevention and preparedness, around 40% to protection from flood damage and the remaining 10% concern recovery. In terms of non-structural initiatives ²⁴ , all assessed FRMPs refer to spatial planning. All 26 Member States’ assessed include nature-based solutions in some or all FRMPs, either as projects or preparatory studies. Although the FD does not mention insurance coverage against flood risks, more than half of the assessed FRMPs mention at least some related measures, including awareness raising.

All Member States reported on the prioritisation of measures, or provided a timeframe for their implementation. To illustrate, around 10% of the measures reported were of critical, 60% of very high or high, 20% of moderate and the remainder of low priority. 19 of 26 Member States assessed made some analysis of costs and benefits of measures. For nearly all, a national approach was developed ²⁵ . Fewer (11) Member States used a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in all Units of Management (UoMs) ²⁶ assessed. 21 of 26 Member States explicitly refer to coordination with the environmental objectives of Article 4 of the WFD in all or at least some UoMs.

About half of the Member States assessed made estimates of the costs of flood measures available, though, in many cases, not covering all FRMPs or measures. In 23 of 26 Member States, most of the FRMPs identified funding sources, however, in many cases this concerns possible funding mechanisms at large, e.g. the European Structural and Investment Funds.

A variety of consultation channels with the public and stakeholders was used and, overall, a broad range of stakeholders were involved in the preparation of the first FRMPs, however, it was not always clear how the contributions influenced the FRMPs which were adopted at various administrative levels and through various acts.

For the second FRMPs Member States should

·Clearly link the implementation of measures to the achievement of objectives to be able to assess progress from the second cycle onwards;

·Identify specific funding sources to secure the implementation of measures.

5.2    Impact of Climate Change

There is growing evidence that climate change will have a substantial impact on the occurrence and severity of floods in much of Europe ²⁷ . Over half of the Member States considered climate change at the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and Flood Hazard and Risk Maps steps. From the FRMPs assessed and Member State reporting, 24 of the 26 Member States considered at least some aspects and ten provided evidence that climate change impacts were considered. Fourteen Member States discussed future climate scenarios in their FRMPs with varying time-frames (about half have scenarios for 2050, and scenarios for 2100 are also in about half). Less than half refer to the national adaptation strategies prepared by Member States under the EU Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. In about a quarter of Member States all FRMPs assessed referred to such national strategies; in a further few Member States some, but not all FRMPs assessed, had such references.

For the second FRMPs Member States should

·In accordance with Article 14 of the FD, factor in the likely impact of climate change on the occurrence of flooding and adapt measures accordingly making appropriate use of EU modelling tools such as those available through the Copernicus Climate Change Service ²⁸ ;

·Consider national climate change strategies and coordinate with measures included therein.

5.3    Transboundary co-operation under the FD

Under the FD Member States are required to coordinate with each other in transboundary river basins and also make efforts to coordinate with third countries. Where coordination structures are established, the development of an international Flood Risk Management Plan (iFRMP) led invariably to common objectives for flood risk management and, in almost all cases, to the definition of a number of coordinated measures. Extensive public consultation took place for some of the basins where a river commission has been established, such as in the Danube, the Rhine, the Elbe and the Odra; consideration of climate change at the basin level is more developed where a river commission is tasked with coordination.

For the second cycle Member States with transboundary river basins should

·Further develop common approaches, taking account, at the basin scale, of the upstream and downstream effects of flood risk reduction measures not located in the vicinity of national borders and extend the practice of international public consultations.

6. Conclusions

Overall, knowledge and reporting on the Water Framework Directive have significantly improved compared to the previous cycle. More Member States reported in a timely manner and with more comprehensive, relevant and reliable information.

Compliance with the Water Framework Directive objectives is reported as increasing gradually. Although in a number of Member States good policy measures were taken and a number of financial investments made, in many river basins improvements in water quality will still take some time. Indeed, while a large majority of groundwater bodies has achieved good status, less than half of surface water bodies is in good status, although trends in several underlying individual quality elements and substances are more positive.

Much remains to be done to fully achieve the objectives of the Water Framework Directive and related Directives, first and foremost by the Member States. Member States will benefit from a greater involvement of all relevant market and civil society actors to secure a better enforcement of the polluter pays principle. EU funds will continue to support these implementation efforts, including funding of research and innovation and efforts ²⁹ towards a Digital Single Market for Water Services ³⁰ . The path towards full compliance with the WFD’s objectives by 2027, after which exemption possibilities are limited, seems at this stage very challenging. Reporting showed indeed that, although further measures will be taken until 2021, many others will be needed beyond 2021.

For the Floods Directive, very important steps have been taken. Although these are the first FRMPs, it is clear that all Member States have fundamentally embraced the concept of flood risk management even if the practical degree of elaboration varies. Achieving the key objective of the Floods Directive of reducing the potential adverse consequences from significant flooding will require sustained efforts from the part of the Member States in the following cycles.

The Commission will follow-up as relevant with the Member States on the recommendations contained in this report and its accompanying documents, to secure a better implementation of the requirements under the Water Framework and the Floods Directives. A stepped up enforcement of the legal obligations covering key pressures on the aquatic environment, such as those stemming from the Nitrates and Urban Waste Water Treatment Directives, will also be pursued.

Next to continue working with Member States, the Commission will further engage with citizens and all relevant stakeholders to promote compliance, also through the Environmental Implementation Review. Where possible, reporting will be further streamlined or simplified. Attention will be paid to new emerging pollutants, e.g. microplastics and pharmaceuticals.

The present report will feed into the ongoing Fitness Check of EU water law and the evaluation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. It also contributes to assessing progress made towards the achievement of the objectives of the EU's 7th Environmental Action Programme and the global 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

Europe’s waters are increasingly affected by climate change. Compliance with EU water law is already helping to manage the effects of a changing climate, by anticipating more droughts and floods. EU water policy holds considerable potential to mitigate climate change, provided effective action is taken now.

(1)

See report “Global Warming of 1.5 °C”, adopted at the 48th IPCC session (6 October 2018) for the expected effects and impacts of 1.5° C and 2° C scenarios.

(2)

2000/60/EC; supplemented by Groundwater (2006/118/EC) and Environmental Quality Standards (2008/105/EC) Directives.

(3)

2007/60/EC

(4)

E.g. slow recovery of ecosystems following the implementation of river restoration measures or low rates of reduction in concentrations of nitrate in groundwater.

(5)

E.g. through socio-economic changes such as the encroachment of assets into floodplains.

(6)

Spain notified the Commission that the RBMP for La Gomera was endorsed on 17 September 2018, Tenerife, La Palma on 26 November 2018, Fuerteventura, Lanzarote, El Hierro on 26 December 2018, and Gran Canaria on 21 January 2019.

(7)

The format for electronic reporting as well as reporting guidance was jointly elaborated by the Member States, stakeholders and the Commission as part of a collaborative process called the “Common Implementation Strategy” (CIS).

(8)

On Water scarcity and droughts of 30 October 2007; on Water scarcity, drought and adaptation to climate change of 11 June 2010; on Integrated flood management within the EU of 12 May 2011; on Protection of water resources and integrated sustainable water management in the EU and beyond of 21 June 2011; on a Blueprint to safeguard Europe's water resources of 17 December 2012; on EU water diplomacy of 22 July 2013; and sustainable water management of 17 October 2016

(9)

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water

(10)

Good Ecological Potential is the objective to be reached by a heavily modified or artificial water body.

(11)

Other ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances causing failure to meet good chemical status are pBDEs, tributyltin and certain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene).

(12)

Substances presenting a significant risk to or via the aquatic environment, listed in the Environment Quality Standards Directive.

(13)

Commission Decision (EU) 2018/229 of 12 February 2018.

(14)

Article 4(4) allows for an extension of the deadline for achieving good status or potential beyond 2015 (as set by Article 4(1)). Article 4(5) allows for the achievement of less stringent objectives. Article 4(6) allows a temporary deterioration in the status of water bodies. Article 4(7) sets out conditions in which deterioration of status or failure to achieve the WFD objectives may be permitted for new modifications to the physical characteristics of surface water bodies, alterations to the level of groundwater, or deterioration from high to good status as a result of new sustainable human development activities.

(15)

The next interim reports on the implementation of the planned PoMs should be reported to the Commission by 22 December 2018.

(16)

Within each RBD, a POMs is to be established to address the significant issues identified and allow the achievement of the Article 4 objectives. POMs shall include as a minimum 'basic measures' and where necessary to achieve objectives 'supplementary measures'.

(17)

Notably New Statutory Requirement No 1 related to Directive 2000/60/EC: Article 11(3)(e) and Article 11(3)(h) as regards mandatory requirements to control diffuse sources of pollution by phosphates, SMR 2 on Nitrates directive obligations, GAEC 2 on appropriate protection of wetland and peatland, GAEC 4 on buffer strips, GAEC 5 on the Use of Farm Sustainability Tool for Nutrients, and GAEC 7 on no bare soil in most sensitive period.

GAEC: Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/cross-compliance_en .

(18)

Member States will have to propose support to voluntary eco-schemes for farmers to carry out agricultural practices beneficial for the environment and the climate under the CAP first pillar. In addition, support to voluntary agri-environment commitments will remain obligatory under the second pillar.

(19)

Locating assets within floodplains or near the coast, the reduction of water-retaining surfaces, interventions to water courses or their surroundings and man-instigated climate change, all contribute to an increase in the likelihood and adverse impacts of flood events.

(20)

Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz, Iwona Pińskwar & G. Robert Brakenridge (2012): Large floods in Europe, 1985–2009, Hydrological Sciences Journal.

(21)

Rojas et al. (2013) Climate change and river floods in the EU: Socio-economic consequences and the costs and benefits of adaptation, Global Environmental Change 23, 1737–1751 available at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013001416#

(22)

Commission Staff Working Document – Overview of natural and man-made disaster risks the European Union may face{SWD (2017)176 final}; https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/285d038f-b543-11e7-837e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

(23)

There are nearly 8 000 areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFRs) in the EU.

(24)

Measures not involving civil engineering structures.

(25)

In November 2017, the European Commission proposed to strengthen the EU Civil Protection Mechanism by encouraging a stronger collective European response with the development of a reserve capacity (known as ‘rescEU’) to complement national capacities, and by stepping up disaster prevention and preparedness in Participating States to the Mechanism (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6766_en.htm).

(26)

UoMs coincide, in most Member States, with the River Basin Districts under the WFD. Member States have designated a total of 196 UoM for the implementation of the FD.

(27)

The October 2018 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mentioned that flooding is projected to be substantially lower at 1.5°C as compared to 2°C of global warming, although projected changes create regionally differentiated risks ( http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/ ).

(28)

https://climate.copernicus.eu/

(29)

Relevant projects developing solutions like decision support systems for the measurement of water quality and quantity, interoperability between water information systems at EU and national levels and efficiency of water resources management are represented in the ICT4Water Cluster: https://www.ict4water.eu/

(30)

As described in the Digital Single Market for Water Services Action Plan:

https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/ict4wateractionplan2018.pdf