5 ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
OF FLOODS
(27231)
5540/06
COM(06) 15
+ ADD 1
| Draft Directive on the assessment and management of floods
Annex to the draft Directive on the assessment and management of floods - Impact Assessment
|
| Legal base | Article 175(1)EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 18 January 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament |
25 January 2006 |
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration |
EM of 3 February 2006 |
| Previous Committee Report |
None, but see footnote 8 |
| To be discussed in Council
| June 2006 |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
5.1 In their Report of 15 September 2004, our predecessors noted
that the Commission had produced in July 2004 a Communication[8]
which addressed the question of flood risk management. In it,
the Commission had observed that Europe had 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 went
on to describe the assets at risk adjacent to rivers and coasts
as enormous, and pointed out that, although floods cannot be prevented,
their frequency and impact are being increased by human activity
and climate change. It also noted that, although many Member States
were already taking protective measures, concerted action at Community
level would bring considerable added value, and it set out in
the Communication ways in which this might be achieved.
5.2 Since this document gave rise to subsidiarity concerns, and
also raised questions over what the Community could contribute
in an area where they felt the main responsibility for action
must necessarily be at national level, our predecessors recommended
it for debate in European Standing Committee A. That debate duly
took place on 8 December 2004.
The current proposal
5.3 In the light of the reaction to its earlier Communication,
the Commission has now produced this proposal for a draft Directive,
aimed at laying down a framework for reducing the risks to human
health, the environment and economic activity associated with
floods. In doing so, it uses definitions of river basins and other
elements established in the Water Framework Directive,[9]
and links the various timescales for implementation and review
in this instrument to those set in that Directive. As drafted,
it would:
- require Member States to complete within three years of the
Directive's entry into force a preliminary flood risk assessment
for each river basin district, including associated coastal zones:
this would have to include a map showing topography and land use,
descriptions of past floods, flooding processes and any development
plans, an assessment of the likelihood of future floods (taking
into account the impact of climate change and land use trends),
and a forecast of the estimated consequences for human health,
the environment and economic activity;
- require this preliminary risk assessment to be used to designate
river basins (including associated coastal zones) or their constituent
smaller parts as either liable to potential significant flood
risk, or not, though the concept of significant flood risk is
not defined;
- require Member States to complete by 22 December 2013 at latest
flood risk maps for those areas designated as being at potential
significant risk, showing extensive detail of expected flooding,
and of potential damage to human health, the environment and economic
activity: these maps would have to be drawn up in relation to
three scenarios, of high, medium and low probability, based respectively
on likely return periods of 10 years, 100 years and on "extreme
events"; and
- require Member States to prepare and implement for the same
areas flood risk management plans at river basin district level,
establishing what they regard as appropriate levels of protection,
and including measures aimed at achieving that level of protection:
however, such measures must not increase the flood risk to neighbouring
countries.
5.4 Member States are also required to co-ordinate their efforts
in respect of international river basins falling entirely within
the Community, with the aim of producing one single plan. Where
an international river basin extends to one or more countries
outside the Community, and no such plan is produced, Member States
are required to produce a plan covering at least the parts of
the river basin district falling within their own territory. These
would have to be published by 22 December 2015 at latest, and
implemented from the following day. They are also required to
ensure the active involvement of all interested parties in developing
and subsequently reviewing flood risk management plans, and to
make these available to the public, together with the preliminary
flood risk assessments and flood risk maps.
The Government's view
5.5 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 3 February 2006, the Minister
of State (Environment and Agri-Environment) at the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Elliot Morley) observes
that the Commission's principal rationale for this proposal rests
on the need to avoid inconsistent or contradictory approaches
to flood risk management, and to ensure co-ordinated planning
and action within river basins and sub-basins which span two or
more Member States (which are said to represent the majority of
river basins and coastal areas within the Community, making a
purely national approach technically and economically unfeasible).
5.6 The Minister points out that subsidiarity is said to be respected
in that decisions on the level of protection to be achieved for
each river basin or sub-basin, and the measures to be adopted,
are to be made by Member States. However, he notes that, although
this rationale relates mainly to trans-boundary waters, the Directive
would be applicable to the whole of each Member State, and that,
whilst this may not be a major distinction for much of the Community,
the UK has only one river (in Northern Ireland) which is trans-boundary.
Consequently, although the Government acknowledges that the importance
of flood risk management, into which the UK already puts effort
and resources, it has taken the view in previous discussions,
notably at the meeting of the Environment Council in October 2004,
that this is an area where co-ordination and cooperation would
be more desirable than Community legislation. He says that the
Government is again considering its approach, and that this will
include whether to argue that the Directive would be best limited
to trans-boundary waters only.
5.7 Other issues which the Minister says need to be addressed
are as follows.
- There is a tradition of Community legislation relating to
water quality, but not to flooding, and the Commission proposes
to fully align the organisational and institutional aspects and
timing between this instrument and the Water Framework Directive,
a step which he says is presented as producing a degree of administrative
simplification for Member States. He adds that the Government
will want to consider the extent to which this alignment is appropriate,
given the different objectives of the Directives, the extent to
which the text actually produces this result, and the possible
implications for the UK.
- The requirement to produce a preliminary flood risk assessment
is intended to ensure that flood risk mapping and flood management
plans are applied only to those areas justifying this work because
they are at significant risk. He comments that this approach seems
a welcome attempt to avoid redundant effort, but that the Government
will need to consider whether the methods of assessment set out
in the text actually achieve this objective, and are themselves
no more onerous than is necessary.
- In relation to the production of flood risk maps, the Government
will consider whether the proposals are technically feasible,
and the extent to which they would provide information useful
to the public and others. It will also want to establish whether
they would allow full use to be made of the substantial existing
body of work within much of the UK, and thus avoid any unnecessary
duplication.
- The text is intended by the Commission to provide considerable
flexibility to Member States, which will decide on the appropriate
levels of protection to be applied and on the measures to be put
in place to achieve them, but again the Government will need to
consider whether it does offer this degree of flexibility in practice.
In particular, the Directive would for the first time replace
the UK's existing structure of permissive powers with a binding
obligation to state the levels of protection to be applied and
to provide measures to achieve them. It will therefore be necessary
to consider the potential implications of this.
5.8 The Minister also refers to the Commission's impact assessment,
which rules out three options — no Community action, amending
existing legislation, and a prescriptive legislative instrument
— but considers two further options at greater length, namely
a purely voluntary approach and cooperation supplemented by a
flexible legislative instrument (as now proposed). However, he
comments that the Commission's quantification of the economic
effects is not very robust, in that much is left to Member States
to decide, with the costs and benefits involved being determined
by these decisions. It nevertheless concludes that a legislative
approach is to be preferred, because it provides a guarantee of
progress in areas where this is essential, and avoids the possibility
of inaction or contradictory actions by Member States.
5.9 The Commission's Impact Assessment also concludes that there
would be a positive impact across the Community on competitiveness
as a result of reduced disruption from floods, and that better
information and thus certainty for the public, and reduced psychological
and economic disruption, would produce positive social effects,
whilst the avoidance of damage would provide positive environmental
benefits. He points out that the extent to which these effects
would be felt in the UK would depend on whether the Directive
produced significant improvements in existing practices. However,
initial analysis suggests that the principal impacts would be
in the form of additional administrative requirements on public
bodies, and that there is likely to be little or no direct impact
on business.
5.10 The Minister says that the Government will submit a partial
Regulatory Impact Assessment by the end of April 2006. In the
meantime, he notes that additional costs within the UK can be
estimated only very roughly at this stage, and could alter radically
as a result of developments in the course of the negotiations,
or as the implications of the proposal become clearer. However,
on the basis of the proposal as it stands, preliminary estimates
of the initial set up costs, for work additional to that already
planned in the UK, total at least £95 million over a six
to seven year period for the UK as a whole.[10]
He says that a high proportion of these costs would arise from
the detailed requirements for flood risk mapping, which go beyond
the extensive work already undertaken for England and Wales, but
adds that, were the Directive ultimately to lead to obligations
beyond current practice in respect of protective measures, emergency
planning arrangements, etc., the recurring costs could be much
greater.
Conclusion
5.11 It is clear that this document raises, in a legislative
context, issues similar to those in the earlier Commission Communication
which prompted our predecessors to recommend that document for
debate, and, once we have received the Regulatory Impact Assessment
promised by the Government, we will want to consider carefully
whether a similar approach would be justified on this occasion.
In the meantime, we are drawing the proposal to the attention
of the House, together with the Minister's very full preliminary
analysis of its implications.
8
(25828) 11422/04; see HC 42-xxxi (2003-04), para 1 (15 September
2004). Back
9
2000/60/EC. OJ No. L.327, 22.12.2000, p.1. Back
10
Around £50 million would arise in England and Wales taken
together, £35 million in Scotland, and £10 million in
Northern Ireland. Back
|
