Select Committee on European Scrutiny Eighteenth Report


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 baseArticle 175(1)EC; co-decision; QMV
Document originated18 January 2006
Deposited in Parliament 25 January 2006
DepartmentEnvironment, 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 assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionNot 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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 17 February 2006