Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Flood risk management — Flood prevention, protection and mitigation (COM(2004) 472 final)
Date: 2005-02-09
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: climate change, engineering structure, environmental risk prevention, flood, hydraulic works, hydrology, scientific research

8.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/35

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the
Commission to the Council,
the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Flood risk management — Flood prevention,
protection and mitigation

the European Parliament,

(COM(2004) 472 final)

(2005/C 221/08)

On 12 July 2004, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned
communication.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 January 2005. The rapporteur was
Ms Sanchez Miguel.

At its 414th plenary session of 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 9 February 2005), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 132 votes with no votes against and
two abstentions.

1. Introduction

The adoption of

the Water Framework Directive (1)
1.1
(WFD) can be said to have brought about a significant shift in
EU water policy, not only because it introduced a harmonised
approach to the various situations facing our continental and
marine waters, but also because it established an effective
method of assessing the quality of these waters and put in
place a centralised organisational system that makes it easier to
tackle each river basin in a uniform manner, regardless of the
various competences which exist for each stretch of the river
basin. Furthermore, the Commission has continued to supple-
ment and develop the WFD by means of legislative (2) and
other provisions (3), to ensure that EU water policy works to
protect our rivers and seas.

1.3
Flood risks are increasing in the EU for two main
reasons: firstly, the effects of climate change, which could lead
to more frequent torrential rains and higher sea levels as a
consequence of the warming of the atmosphere. The second
factor is the impact of human activity, such as construction
work in rivers and projects to divert and channel the course of
rivers, and the construction of ports without adopting measures
to assess and correct
impact. Another
human factor is the increased desertification of our continent,
which has suffered from the wide-scale felling of trees, fires and
other activities that go against nature. In short, flood risks are
increasing as a consequence of unsustainable activity. Adopting
sustainable models of economic, social and environmental
development can therefore minimise these risks.

their environmental

the phenomenon of

including the issue of

Incomprehensibly, however,

1.2
the WFD omitted some
aspects that are extremely important for the quality of our river
flooding. Although there is
basins,
nothing unnatural about
its
effects are in some cases considerably amplified by human
activity. Many of the disastrous effects of flooding could be
mitigated by means of an appropriate policy on the use and
protection of rivers and riverbanks. In particular, this would
require the construction of water-related infrastructure to take
real — not just formal — account of the environmental impact
in order to avoid changing natural dynamics and to remain in
the interests of a sensible use of water resources.

flooding,

The flooding of

land used for industry,

1.3.1
intensive
farming and livestock-breeding, and also of built-up areas,
results in the spread of substances and products which under
normal conditions do not threaten water quality but, as a
consequence of
flooding, become dangerous contaminants,
with potential effects for public health and the ecosystems
concerned.

(1) OJ L 327 of 22.12.2000, p. 72.
(2) EESC Opinion on the Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the protection of groundwater
against pollution (COM(2003)550 final) – OJ C 112 of 30 April
2004, pp. 40–43.

(3) European Parliament and Council Decision establishing the list of
priority substances in the field of water policy, COM(2000) 47 final.
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee: Pricing policies
for enhancing the sustainability of water resources, COM(2000) 477
final. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament: Towards a strategy to protect and conserve
the marine environment, COM(2002) 539 final.

The EESC would point out that between 1998 and 2002
1.4
Europe suffered over 100 major floods including the cata-
strophic floods along the Danube and Elbe rivers in 2002.
Since 1998 floods have caused some 700 fatalities, the displa-
cement of about half a million people and some EUR 25 billion
in insured economic losses (4).

(4) Source: COM(2004) 472 final

C 221/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2005

The Commission is aware of this state of affairs and
1.5
presented the Environment Council of
July 2004 with a
proposal for EU action on flood protection, with a view to
ensuring concerted action to improve protection against flood
risks. Member States must cooperate on mapping risk areas
and on implementing flood risk management plans in every
river basin and in coastal areas, with the Commission facili-
tating the coordination of information between all States and
promoting best practice in this area.

2.3.1
At European level, action is geared towards using
existing measures and policies for preventing and mitigating
floods. In terms of research policy, the aim is to use research
projects such as FLOODsite, which helps to improve integrated
flood risk analysis and management methodologies. The use of
the Structural Funds,
the European Regional
in particular
Development Fund, can help to improve technological research
in infrastructures (1). The IRMA project
and development
(‘INTERREG Rhine-Meuse Activities’) is an example of a cross-
border approach to combating floods.

1.6
Lastly, it should be added that although this action is to
be undertaken in the context of Community water policy, this
issue also affects other European policies, such as those on agri-
culture, environment, civil protection, transport, etc. Further-
more, there is an extremely far-reaching legal problem which
affects all of these policies, relating to flood plain management:
the demarcation and definition of
the public sphere as it
applies to the protection of riverbanks and coastlines, so that
they are not subject to major modifications by the authorities
that are exclusively politically motivated and which affect other
competences in water management and in flood risk planning.
Demarcating protected areas would make it easier to take flood
prevention measures.

2. Gist of the Commission's proposal

The Communication's content can be divided into three

2.1
headings, which are:

— flood risk management;

— what is already being done and future initiatives;

— a concerted EU action programme.

The aim of flood risk management is to reduce the like-
2.2
lihood and impact of floods. It is therefore proposed that the
flood risk management plans
following
elements:

incorporate

the

— prevention;

— protection:

— preparedness;

— emergency response plans;

— recovery and lessons learned.

2.3
In terms of what is already being done and of future
initiatives to mitigate the effects of floods, three levels of action
are proposed.

2.3.1.1
At European level too, it is proposed that the CAP
should be used to establish flood protection areas through
forestry and other agricultural activities as a means of
protecting the soil. Similarly, it is intended to bring environ-
mental policy into play under the WFD, by integrating flood
risk management into integrated river basin plans. Furthermore,
the Solidarity Fund, created in 2002 in the wake of the major
floods in Central Europe, is to remain in place for emergencies.

2.3.2
As regards the role of the Member States, it should be
pointed out that they have acted to combat the effects of floods
by providing official and legal guidelines, in particular in the
States that suffer most from such events. There are plans and
strategies to protect against floods, and risk maps have even
been drawn up in those regions that suffer most frequent
flooding.

2.3.3
Thirdly, measures have been put in place for interna-
tional cooperation on transboundary rivers, in Central Europe
in particular, by setting up bodies to ensure a coordinated
approach to river basin management.

The EU's programme for concerted action contains
2.4
some features that are crucial
to establishing measures to
prevent and mitigate the effects of flooding. The most note-
improving coordination between authorities
worthy are:
through the river basin and coastal area management plans,
flood risk mapping as a tool for planning, and exchange of best
practice.

2.4.1
For this programme to succeed, the Member States,
the Commission and the other interested parties must coop-
erate and fulfil their tasks and obligations in the field of flood
risk prevention.

(1) An interesting example was presented to the EESC's Section for
Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment by Mr Sándor
Tóth, representative of the Hungarian Department of the Environ-
ment and Water Management, on the programme of long-term
flood management and regional development in the Tisza valley.

8.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/37

2.4.2
The estimated costs of this joint action are hard to
quantify, but the qualitative benefits that minimising the effects
of flooding will have for the people of Europe, their property
and for the people and areas concerned far outweigh any costs.

limits of floods, which, as already stated, are events asso-
ciated with the normal functioning of river and coastal
systems.

2.5
An annex sets out guidelines for the development and
implementation of flood risk management plans and flood risk
maps; this is important for ensuring a uniform approach to
achieving the programme's objectives.

3. General comments

3.1
The EESC welcomes the Commission's Communication,
aimed at improving and harmonising the prevention systems in
place in many Member States to mitigate the effects of
flooding. Nevertheless, firstly, a more thorough assessment of
the problem must be made in order to decide on suitable
measures geared,
towards the most effective
preventive actions which would prevent much of the damage
caused by flooding. Secondly,
some basic concepts not
mentioned in the proposal must be defined, so that agreement
can be reached on the measures proposed for management
plans and risk maps, in the most harmonised manner possible.

in particular,

3.2
Floods are natural phenomena associated with the
normal functioning of river and coastal systems and operate on
a geological timescale that is far greater than the timescale
normally used for example in managing economic planning or
therefore
land-use planning, etc. The ‘recurrence interval’
means that:

— when flooding takes place, be it in 100 or 500 years' time,

the river will flood a given area;

— these floods will definitely recur;

— they can recur at any time.

3.3
The seriousness of a flood depends on the occupation
and use of flood areas by human beings for activities that affect
the normal functioning of these water systems, substantially
altering the river and coastal environment. Such activity
increases the risk of abnormal conditions that are extremely
harmful to human beings and property. The EESC considers
that the following factors should be seen as increasing the
severity and scale of flooding:

— inappropriate land-use planning,

in some cases over a
prolonged period, as a result of ignoring scientific and tech-
nical information, which would be unacceptable today;

— ill-judged flood risk management (straightening of rivers,
channelling of flood waters, construction of reservoirs and
dams, cutting off flood detention basins by building dykes
close to rivers), measures that have often proved to be
inadequate or,
sometimes even
taking a wider view,
counter-productive, particularly downriver.

3.4
The increasing flood risk as a consequence of changing
natural factors, in particular climate change, requires a great
deal of research to determine how these changes can affect
river and coastal dynamics and hence flood-prone areas and
recurrence intervals, amongst other variables.

3.5
The increasing risk as a consequence of human factors,
such as land use in these areas and the number of people
located there, can and must be corrected by including active
planning policies geared to achieving the SUSTAINABLE use of
flood areas and to minimising risks.

Concepts used in hydrological planning include:

4. Specific comments

— The riverbed or natural course of a continuous or non-
the land covered by water under

continuous flow is
maximum normal rises in level.

— Flood plains are areas demarcated by the theoretical levels
that waters would reach during flooding,
the statistical
recurrence interval for which could be 100 or 500 years.
This does not affect the ownership of the land (public or
limits on
private), but
usage in order to ensure the safety of persons and property.

the competent authority can set

— The normal

features of

flood areas generally include
wetlands, alluvial forests, other types of flood plain, debris
cones caused by torrential floods in mountainous areas,
lagoon marshes and several features (many of these asso-
ciated with ecologically valuable ecosystems) indicating the

The EESC agrees that flood risk management aims to
4.1
reduce the likelihood and/or
floods, normally
through a process involving the aims of prevention, protection,
information, etc., as pointed out by the Commission. Neverthe-
less, it is worth classifying the actions and measures that can be
adopted and the criteria for making the right choice in each
case. The following preventive measures might be used:

impact of

— Natural

flood protection measures, e.g.

improving or
restoring natural drainage by reducing soil compaction or
restoring forests in mountainous areas; recovery of (former)
naturally occurring flood detention areas; slowing down the
flow and propagation rate of the flood wave by reversing
measures to straighten rivers;
improved drainage of rain-
water in residential areas.

C 221/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2005

— Actions that alter a flood area's susceptibility to incur
damage, such as early warning systems, land-use planning
and restricting use in flood areas, etc.

ment objectives (e.g. the objectives of the Water Framework
Directive concerning water and ground water quality and
the objectives of European nature conservation directives).

— Actions to prevent

flooding (hydrological or hydraulic
measures): these may be structural (flood control reservoirs,
channelling, dykes, etc.) or non-structural (restrictions on
urban use, programmes to safeguard property, etc.).

4.2
The EESC suggests to the Commission that management
plans be based on the following principles and non-structural
measures:

— Returning river and coastal water systems to their natural
state, promoting the recovery of natural spaces and the
natural self-regulating functions of basins (reforestation in
affected mountainous areas, the protection of wetlands and
associated ecosystems, monitoring erosion and sedimenta-
tion in water courses, programmes for finding alternative
uses for and recovering high risk land, etc.).

— The principle of achieving sustainable development in flood

areas, by:

i. estimating the exploitable economic potential of land
use in these areas which is compatible with natural
flood activity;

ii. planning the transition to these models in the various

areas of planning, in particular land-use planning.

It is in this context that the principle of long-term strategic plan-
ning should be brought to bear, i.e. not simply a question of
in the
taking account of
Commission Communication, but essentially of correcting
them, in cases where it is reasonable to assume that the current
level of risk will remain the same or increase.

the forecast changes, as set out

Appropriate guidelines and criteria should be drawn up

4.3
for selecting suitable measures to improve flood protection:

— improved flood protection must not lead to deterioration of
the hydrological situation elsewhere (e.g. due to increased
run-off, higher water levels or faster flood waves down-
river);

— as far as possible and in keeping with the principle of
sustainable development, preference is to be given not to
constructing technical protection systems but to action to
restore river basins, and to natural measures that contain
flood water more within a specific area without causing
damage (allowing it to spread rather than rise);

— wherever possible, preference is to be given to measures
which can offer synergies with other sustainable develop-

Experience with flood risk management in various parts
4.4
of the world, in particular since the 1970s, has demonstrated
that the main difficulties in implementing preventive measures
are not technical and cannot be resolved by risk or danger
maps alone. In the USA, for example, the Army Corps of Engi-
neers has produced more than 20 000 risk maps, but very few
local authorities make use of them and, when they do, they opt
for one type of structural action (such as channelling, dams and
dykes) which has frequently failed to adequately control floods
and prevent a great deal of avoidable damage because the
authorities and the public at large have been lulled into a false
sense of security.

4.5
It should be stressed that in the EU, such measures —
basically the construction of dams and channels, which are of
limited use — are precisely those financed by the Structural
Funds, (ERDF and the Cohesion Funds). Preventive measures,
structural or otherwise, are generally less well
funded. The
EESC therefore considers it necessary to assess the need to
establish a specific funding line for this Action Programme or,
failing this, drawing up guidelines for the inclusion of actions
in other Commission-funded programmes.

At all events, structural measures such as these are not
4.6
sufficient to prevent floods or to protect flood areas. They only
make sense as part of a broader approach in which land-use
planning, transport planning (roads, rail, etc.), maintenance of
flood drainage channels and the protection of the areas and
ecosystems that regulate natural run-off are also taken into
account. It would thus be appropriate in future to make the
guidelines in the Communication's annex more precise, and to
include methodological principles or good practice for drawing
up these plans.

4.7
Incorporating flood management plans into the manage-
ment plans of the Water Framework Directive is crucial to
ensuring that the necessary planning is undertaken for action
over the entire length of the river basin and that the measures
and actions undertaken by the competent authorities at the
various levels (local, State, cross-border, etc.) are compatible
and properly coordinated. Criteria and formulae must be estab-
lished to ensure the proper integration of these two planning
frameworks, which are compatible but different, by means of a
Directive facilitating this. These elements should be dealt with
in greater detail in the proposed further development of the
appended guidelines.

8.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/39

Incorporating flood management into the WFD essen-

4.8
tially requires:

— a definition of flooding as a phenomenon associated with
the normal functioning of river and coastal systems, which
can, exceptionally and periodically, affect water quality and
ecosystems;

— a definition of ‘flood zone’ that is closely linked to the terri-
torial aspect of WFD's scope (land use, potential contamina-
tion, ecosystems linked to water quality, etc.);

— a definition of flood risk linked to the risks and damage to

the bodies of water covered by the WFD;

— specific risk management that addresses water management
exactly as set out in the WFD (use of water in the river
basin, cost recovery, action plans, establishing protected
areas).

The most important aspects of flood risk management

4.9
linked to WFD-based planning are:

1) Risk definition and management:

— hydrological risks, water quality and ecosystems

— associated geological risks, landslides, avalanches

— management and renovation of public inland waterways

and coastal waters

— ecological criteria for flood management

— town planning criteria.

2) Warnings and emergencies:

— geographical zoning

— hydrological

information systems and an emergency

prevention system

— civil protection

— a legislative framework in each Member State to regulate

the above aspects

— civic education

— coordination between the authorities concerned.

3) Other aspects:

— multidisciplinary research and coordination

— risk cover insurance

— sound construction of infrastructure.

5. Conclusions

5.1
The EESC is of the view that any action to prevent,
protect against or mitigate flooding must incorporate the meth-

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

odology and instruments created by the WFD, in particular the
river basin plan, which makes it possible to regulate all activ-
ities relating to the management of inland waterways and the
connected coastal areas. To this end, the EESC believes it neces-
sary to incorporate the content of the Communication and the
comments made here into a Community Directive that would
help bring risk management plans into line with the character-
istics of each basin plan, thereby adapting to the particular
conditions of our rivers and coastlines.

To ensure that these aspects are properly incorporated,

5.2
there must be:

— a clear definition of the basic concepts that will underpin
action, especially those referred to in point 4.7 of
the
opinion;

— a thorough assessment of the current situation in every
river basin and coastal area in Europe, especially in areas
deemed to be high-risk as a result of climate change and
human activity;

— emphasis on actions to prevent

the harmful effects of
flooding, building on and including all measures aimed at
the population, by means of appropriate education and
information.

annexes

taking into account

Risk management plans and risk mapping, as set out in
5.3
the
to the proposed communication, must be
extended, so as to establish and clarify a classification of action
and measures,
those with the highest
priority and that are most appropriate to the financing
obtained, as well as the criteria to be met in order to reduce
costs and increase the benefits to people and property. The
most important aim is to reconcile the natural functioning of
inland waterway and coastal systems with human activity, in
short, to achieve integrated and sustainable activity in flood
areas.

Lastly,

the EESC considers that

5.4
the most significant
aspects of flood risk management, which concern planning
under the WFD, are the definitions of risk, warnings and emer-
gencies for times when these phenomena occur. Moreover, it is
important not to lose sight of other Community measures for
multidisciplinary research and cooperation, aimed specifically
at mitigating the damage caused by flooding, for putting in
place insurance to cover damage and minimise the economic
loss suffered by the victims and, above all, for vigilance and
control over the safety of infrastructure projects in the inland
waterway and coastal systems.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND