1 Flood prevention
| (25828)
11422/04
COM(04) 472
| Commission Communication: "Flood risk management - Flood prevention, protection and mitigation"
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 12 July 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 15 July 2004
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 7 September 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee A
|
Background
1.1 According to the Commission, Europe suffered over 100 major
damaging floods between 1998 and 2002, which caused some 700 fatalities,
the displacement of about half a million people, and at least
€25 billion
in insured economic losses. It also describes the assets at risk
adjacent to rivers and coasts as enormous, and points out that,
although floods cannot be prevented, their frequency and impact
are being increased by human activity and climate change. It
notes that, although many Member States are already taking protection
measures, concerted action at Community level would bring considerable
added value, and it sets out in this Communication ways in which
this might be achieved.
The current document
1.2 The Commission points out that floods may occur
either because drainage systems cannot cope with sudden rainfall
or when flood defences fail, and that they may occur some considerable
time after rainfall and last for weeks (as in the case of larger
rivers) or arise very quickly on a localised basis ("flash
floods"). It also says that the extent of damage is affected
by such actions as forest clearance, the straightening of rivers
and suppression of natural flood plains, and extensive building
in high-risk areas. However, it points out that, because local
action taken in one place may have a knock-on effect for areas
upstream and downstream, it is imperative that protection should
be dealt with in a concerted and co-ordinated manner along the
whole length of a river. It also suggests that the most effective
approach to flood management is to develop programmes incorporating
prevention, protection, preparedness and emergency response, combined
with a return to normal conditions as soon as possible and an
attempt to mitigate the social and economic impacts.
1.3 The Communication next analyses what is already
being done. At a European level, it says that the Commission
itself has been supporting research since the early 1980s, and
that this has been successful in improving understanding of floods
and the capacity to estimate their likelihood and extent in given
areas, as well as highlighting the limits to protection methods
and the need for the restoration and protection of valuable eco-systems.
The Communication notes the importance of forecasting and risk
mapping, and the need to adapt future research to the analysis
of climate change, and it stresses the need to see flood protection
as part of an integrated and comprehensive approach to river basin
management. In addition, the Commission points to the role of
the Structural Funds (and in particular the European Regional
Development Fund) in financing preventive infrastructure investment;
the creation of the European Union Solidarity Fund following the
major flooding of the Danube and Elbe in 2002 as a specific instrument
to grant rapid emergency financial assistance where direct damage
exceeds €3 billion (or 0.6% of gross national income); and
the extent to which recent reforms of the Common Agricultural
Policy will contribute to flood protection by improving the capacity
for water retention of soil and by helping to mitigate the extent
of climate change. Finally, the Communication notes the contribution
to this area of the recent restructuring of Community water protection
policy through the adoption of the integrated river basin management
plans required under the new Water Framework Directive.
1.4 Turning to the activities of the Member States,
the Commission notes the differing character of floods and degree
of risk as between areas where flooding is exclusively from rivers
and those, such as the UK, where coastal flooding can occur as
well. It points out that, although the authorities in Member
States have extensive powers to undertake flood management works,
there are no statutory rights to any particular level of protection.
It notes the action taken, including that in the UK, to develop
flood protection strategies, and that many Member States are developing
flood risk maps. Finally, the Commission observes that in many
cases countries bordering the basins of rivers, such as the Rhine,
have established bodies to ensure a co-ordinated approach.
1.5 The Communication concludes by outlining the
need for concerted Community programmes for flood protection in
affected river basins and coastal areas, based on a long-term
strategy and involving an interdisciplinary approach to river
management covering at all levels such factors as agriculture,
transport and urban development, and nature conservation. It suggests
that these would include improving co-ordination, developing flood
risk maps, improving the exchange of information, experience and
best practice, developing stronger links between the research
community and water management and flood protection authorities,
improving the co-ordination between the relevant Community policies,
and increasing awareness through wider stakeholder participation
and more effective communication. It envisages that, whilst the
basic responsibility would rest with the Member States, the Commission
can facilitate co-ordination, and that regular contacts will enable
the various parties to work together.
The Government's view
1.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 7 September
2004, the Minister of State (Environment and Agri-Environment)
at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr
Elliot Morley) first comments on the subsidiarity aspects of the
document. He says that the strict legal principle of subsidiarity
as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty only arises where the Community
has competence which is shared with Member States; that the Community
has no competence for flood risk management as such; and that,
while the Council has power to adopt measures for the protection
of the environment or environmental measures which contribute
to the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources,
the objectives of flood risk management are only in part environmental.
The Minister then suggests that, if a broader concept of subsidiarity
is applied, the competence for dealing with flood management is
best left with Member States as they have the required local knowledge,
and that the proposals in this Communication support such a view,
in that they recommend appropriate action at Member State level,
and limit the Commission's role to those areas where such action
would be insufficient, notably in facilitating co-ordination and
exchanges of information.
1.7 The Minister also points out that the importance
of a strategic approach which aims to set flood risk management
within the broader context of the river basin or shoreline as
a whole is already accepted, and that it is also recognised that
account needs to be taken of the effects which action in one area
may have elsewhere. He believes that, although the individual
approach of the constituent countries within the UK reflects their
prevailing circumstances, the main proposals in the Communication
are generally consistent with existing flood risk management policy
in this country, where the preparation of maps has been undertaken
and stakeholders have been involved in the decision-making process.
However, he also comments that, although the UK recognises that
some linkage between flood management plans and river basin management
plans under the Water Framework Directive would be useful, it
would like to see some flexibility for individual Member States
to decide what those links should be.
Conclusion
1.8 This Communication touches upon an important
subject, and one which may well assume an increasing importance
in the future. Moreover, it seems to us to give rise to subsidiarity
concerns and to questions over precisely what the Community can
contribute in an area where the main responsibility for action
must necessarily be at national level. For these reasons, we
are recommending it for debate in European Standing Committee
A.
|
