Background to the PFRA European Overview - UC9810.5b

Transcription

1 Background to the PFRA European Overview - UC9810.5b The individual Member State Reports reflect the situation as reported by the Member States to the European Commission in 2012 The situation in the MSs may have altered since then Assessment of data and information reported by Member States on their Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and identification of Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk under the Floods Directive Member State Report: Spain The main outcomes of the assessment were: 1. Methodologically, the National authorities ensured the transposition of the Floods Directive and have established guidance that is closely followed in the RBDs 2. All types of floods have been included in the assessment. 3. All aspects of Art.4 have been considered in the PFRAs based on a vast analysis of different information including records, reports, studies, (emergency) plans, press clippings, interviews and surveys. 4. All categories of adverse consequences have been applied in. 5. International Coordination with PT runs under the Convenio de Albufeira bilateral agreement and the corresponding PFRAs have been reported to PT. 6. The impact of climate change according to the IPCC are unclear, in particular regarding a quantification of changes and thus climate change is not considered in the statistical values of flood flows. Climate change might induce an upward trend in the frequency of flood events, but will not affect the magnitude of flood. Therefore the current PFRA should be valid in future. 7. Interaction with the WFD happened mainly/only by the analysis of man-made flood defences which was based on the pressures of the RBMPs. Question 0: Contextual information regarding the Member State Spain is divided into 25 UoMs (equivalent to RBDs), out of which 8 are international (4 shared with PT, 2 with FR, 1 with Andorra and 2 with Morocco), and 8 are islands or island groups. Climatic and water use features are quite different for the RBD subsets, in particular to 4 RBDs in the Northwest and some of the islands. The National RBAs are responsible for planning and many other water management issues of the 10 inter-regional RBDs, though Regional and Local authorities do also hold relevant responsibilities. Regions are responsible for the planning of RBDs that lie entirely in their geographic area. Methodologically, the National authorities ensure the implementation of the Floods Directive (via Real Decreto 903/2010, de evaluación y gestión de riesgos de inundación) and have established guidance (e.g. Guía Metodológica para el Desarrollo del Sistema Nacional de Cartografía de Zonas Inundables. Evaluación Preliminar del Riesgo. Draft Version 5.0 and others) that is closely followed with some basin-relevant adaptations - for the 10 inter-regional RBDs and also often applied in the Regional RBDs. 1 of 17

2 International Coordination with PT runs under the Convenio de Albufeira bilateral agreement and the corresponding PFRAs have been reported to PT. The need for cooperation with the other countries has been included in the legislation. 017 has exchanged information with FR under the Toulouse Agreement (note, no reporting from 091 on this topic, but Spain has subsequently indicated that this has been resolved in the reporting of FHRM). 150 and 160 report that flooding is not relevant for the international part of the RBDs, so no coordination was carried out. The majority of Spain s UoMs (22 RBDs) have applied Art.4; three UoMs (020, 070, and 080) have applied Art.13.1(a), and none has applied Art.13.1(b). Spain has reported data for 25 UoMs and 1248 APSFRs have been identified, mainly due to fluvial events (809 = 65%) and seawater (378 = 30%). Most areas are included due to their significant effects on the economy (1156 = 93%) and human health (886 = 71%). In the public participation process, the main participants came from other administrations and the allegations were focused on the area and risk ranking of specific APSFRs. Interaction with the WFD happened mainly by the analysis of man-made flood defences which were based on the pressures of the RBMPs. Table 1 The application of Articles, 4, 13.1.a and 13.1.b in the Units of Management of Spain Source: WISE Flood aggregation report FD 1.1 Specific Areas to which each Article has been applied UoM Article 4 Article 13.1.a Article 13.1.b of 17

3 Note: if the Articles have not been applied to or reported for any specific area, it is assumed that they have been applied to the entire UoM. In which case the values in the table above will equate to 1. Values of zero for any Article or UoM indicate that that the Article has not been applied to that UoM. Table 2 Specific types of floods to which Article 4, 13.1.a and 13.1.b have been applied Source: WISE Flood aggregation report: FD 1.2 Types of flood to which each Article has been applied Article UoM Source * Mechanism * Characteristic * All types ** Article 4 010, 014, 017, 018, 030, 040, 050, 060, 063, 064, 091, 100, 110, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 150, 160 yes Article 13.1.a 020, 070, 080 yes * Source, mechanism and characteristics in quotation marks is source, mechanism and characteristics specified by member state ** No specific flood types were reported and it is assumed that Article 4 is applied to all flood types Question 1: Are all the types of flood that might be reasonably expected in the Member State included in the assessment of the risk of flooding under Article 4, Article 13.1(a) or Article 13.1(b)? Note: One of the following options was selected to answer the question for each row Yes No Not Clear (Included and Not Included Only) Source Included Not included but might be expected Fluvial Pluvial Yes Yes Groundwater Yes Sea water Yes Artificial water-baring infrastructure Yes Other (provide details in the summary below) Yes 3 of 17

4 All types of floods have been included in the assessment. Historical and potential flooding from sewerage systems has been considered in the analysis. Spain has reported 1248 APSFRs for 25 UoMs, mainly due to fluvial types (809 = 65%) and seawater (378 = 30%), and much less due to pluvial events (21) or mixed causes (40). Other flood sources are referred to in a few cases (16 for all historical floods, 2 for APSFRs) but are not specified in the documents analysed. In historical fluvial floods, the following causes have been identified: blockage/restriction, defence, natural and defence or infrastructure failure. The following characteristics have been identified: flash flood, medium onset flood, deep flood, high velocity flow, debris flow etc. Table 3 Time period covered by different types of historic flood events Source: WISE Flood aggregation report: FD 2.0 Time period covered by historic flood events Source Total flood events Range of years 2000 onwards 1950 to to s Before 1800 Fluvial Pluvial Groundwater Sea water Artificial waterbearing infrastructure No data of 17

5 Table 4 Types of historical significant flood events and types of reported consequences Source: WISE Flood aggregation report: FD 2.1 Types of historical significant flood events Member State Article Source Mechanism Characteristics Article 4 Article 13.1.a Article 13.1.b Artificial water-bearing infrastructure, Fluvial, Groundwater, Pluvial, Sea water Artificial water-bearing infrastructure, Fluvial, Pluvial Blockage/restriction, Defence, Defence or infrastructural failure, Natural Defence or infrastructural failure, Natural Debris flow, Deep flood, Flash flood, High velocity flow, Medium onset flood, Other Deep flood, Flash flood, High velocity flow, Other of Historical floods of flood events with no data Human Health with reported consequences Environment Cultural Heritage Economic Activity Table 5 Types of potential future significant flood events and types of consequences Source: WISE Flood aggregation report: FD 3.1 Types of potential future significant flood events Member State Article Source Mechanism Characteristics Article 4 Artificial waterbearing infrastruc of Historical floods of flood events with no data Human Health with reported consequences Environment Cultural Heritage Economic Activity of 17

6 ture Article 4 Fluvial Article 4 Fluvial Natural Article 4 Fluvial Natural "No special characteristics " Article 4 Pluvial Article 4 Sea water Article 4 Sea water Natural Article 4 Sea water Natural "No special characteristics " Article 13.1.a Fluvial Natural "A39" Article 13.1.a Sea water Natural "A39" More than one type of consequence can be reported for each aggregated consequence (e.g. economic activity) for each flood event, and therefore the totals in the consequence cells may be greater than the total number of flood events reported for each type of flood. 6 of 17

7 Question 2a: What aspects required by Article 4 were not considered in the application of Article 4? Note: One of the following options was selected to answer the question for each row Yes, Information has been reported on this aspect No, it is explicitly stated that this Article has not been applied Not clear, no information reported on these elements Has Article 4 been applied? Yes, information has been reported on this aspect All aspects of Art.4 have been considered in the PFRAs, based on a vast analysis of different information including records, reports, studies, (emergency) plans, press clippings, interviews and surveys. 010 reports specifically on the adverse consequences for the environment. Flood risks impacts not evaluated for those habitats where flooding is considered an ecological process. Question 2b: What aspects required by Article 4 were not considered when producing an assessment of the risk of flooding under Article 13.1(a)? Note: One of the following options was selected to answer the question for each row Yes, Information has been reported on this aspect No, it is explicitly stated that this Article has not been applied Not clear, no information reported on these elements Has Article 13.1(a) been applied? Yes, information has been reported on this aspect Mentioned WISE Aggregation reports Question 3: What aspects required by Article 4 were not considered when producing Flood Hazard Maps and flood risk maps, and Flood Risk Management Plans under Article 13.1(b)? Note: One of the following options was selected to answer the question for each row Yes, Information has been reported on this aspect No, it is explicitly stated that this Article has not been applied Not clear, no information reported on these elements Has Article 13.1(b) been applied? No, it is explicitly stated that this Article has not been applied 7 of 17

8 Article 13.1(b) has not been applied to any of the UoMs. Question 4: What are the types of floods considered/not considered within the auspices of the Floods Directive? All types of floods have been included in the assessment. Flooding from sewerage systems has been considered in the historical and potential analysis. Spain has reported 1248 APSFRs for 25 UoMs, mainly due to fluvial types (809 = 65%) and seawater (378 = 30%), and much less due to pluvial events (21) or mixed causes (40). Other flood sources are referred to in a few cases (16 for all historical floods, 2 for APSFRs), but are not specified in the WISE documents analysed. The following restriction has been applied and identified in the assessment: Seawater floods in estuaries have only been considered for a length in the estuary equivalent to ten times the width of the estuary (017). Question 5: What were the criteria used to define the historical significant floods and what were the reasons for not including some types of flood that occurred in the past? According to the reported data, 6441 historical flood events have been identified and 6165 (95.7%) of them has reported significant consequences. The majority of UoMs has used statistical analysis based on different criteria allocating values to the different effects (e.g. referring to the methodology included in the Spanish guidance document and previous studies/methodologies such as CTEI 1980). Question 6: What methods and criteria were used to identify potentially significant future floods and what were the reasons for not including some types of potential future floods? Flood simulations have been realised for return flows at least of 10, 100 and 500 years periods (adequate to the Spanish legislation by Real Decreto 903/2010). Where no previous hydraulic studies were available, a simplified modelling has been developed to identify the areas under risk. A multi-criteria GIS valuation of future significant floods has been developed based on land-use data, potential consequences, Sistema de Información sobre Ocupación del Suelo en España (SIOSE)) and flood estimation. Different weights have been assigned to the GIS layers, and once summed up, a ranking exercise has been developed, identifying thresholds for the inclusion/non-inclusion of areas according to a balance between flood risk and 8 of 17

9 management capacity and covering a high percentage of the total potential adverse consequences (e.g. 85% (017, 070)). Question 7: What types of flood were considered but not assessed as being significant, and what were the reasons given? Spain has studied more than 6,000 historical flood events and potential future significant flood events, in different types of flood, and a ranking exercise has been developed identifying thresholds for the inclusion/non-inclusion of areas according to a balance between flood risk and management capacity and covering a high percentage of the total potential adverse consequences (e.g. 85% (017, 070)). Question 8: What types of flood were not considered at all, and why? None Question 9: What criteria were used to define an adverse consequence? Spain has reported 1248 APSFRs for 25 UoMs that have been caused mainly due to fluvial types (809 = 65%) and seawater (378 = 30%). Most areas are included due to their significant effects on the economy (1156 = 93%) and human health (886= 71%), and less for effects on cultural heritage (469 = 38%) and the environment (449 = 36%). Values and weightings were allocated to the different effects (referring to the methodology included in the Spanish guidance document, and previous studies/methodologies such as CTEI 1980), and they were summed up. Information reported for 4 UoMs (010, 020, 030, 050) indicates that the adverse consequence of historic floods were weighted according to the following criteria: Fatalities (100) Injured (50) Housing (50) Agricultural and livestock industry (40) Industry (40) Evacuees (25) Transport Infrastructure (25) Electricity supply (15) Irrigation and Drainage Network (15) and Cropland (10). Although equivalent information was not reported to WISE by the other UoMs, it is expected that if national guidelines were followed that similar weightings would have been used. 9 of 17

10 In order to rank the consequences of historical floods, values have been assigned to the different adverse effects, summed up and assigned to municipalities. The used values rank from low (agriculture, electricity network, irrigation networks) to high (mortal victims) ( Guidance document, 030, 050). Question 10: What adverse consequences were excluded or not considered, and what were the reasons for their exclusion? All categories for adverse consequences have been applied in. In 017, data on adverse consequences of historical floods are scarce, and therefore the estimation has been based on future events. Question 11: What methods were used to identify and quantify potential future adverse consequences and impacts? The method is based on an assessment of the potentially flooded areas and the consequences and impacts (see above). Flood risk areas were modelled and their overlap with land-uses (including services, transport infrastructure, environment, cultural heritage) and different consequence/impact values was calculated for 1km river stretches in some UoMs. An assessment was done to evaluate whether significant land-use changes have happened in comparison to historical flood events; and if the development of infrastructural measures (e.g. post-1997, in 110) has changed significantly the flood risk in comparison. Question 12: What long term developments were considered, what methods were used and what were the expected impacts on the occurrence of potentially significant future floods? Regarding the consideration of long-term development, reports that impact of climate change according to IPCC documents is unclear, in particular regarding a quantification of changes. Therefore climate change is not considered in the statistical valuation of flood flows. Climate change might induce an upward trend in the frequency of flood events, but not with regards to their magnitude, and thus the current PFRA should be valid in future. Only 014 reports on the effect of climate change on sea-level rise. Current studies maintain uncertainties and specific regional studies will be carried out by the RBA. 10 of 17

11 014 reports on an observed long-term trend of increased value of land-uses in flood-risk areas. 100 reports on large-scale land-use changes that have already been considered in the PFRA, such as linear transport infrastructure, the Barcelona port and airport infrastructures. 11 of 17

12 of identified Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk Table 6 Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk (APSFR) and types of consequences Source: WISE Flood aggregation report: FD 7.1 Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk Member State Source Mechanism Characteristics of APSFR with reported consequences Human Environment Cultural Health Heritage Fluvial Fluvial Flash flood Economic Activity Fluvial Blockage/restriction, Natural Fluvial Defence, Natural Flash flood, Debris flow Flash flood Fluvial Defence, Natural Fluvial Defence, Natural Fluvial Defence, Natural, Blockage/restriction Deep flood, Medium onset flood, Debris flow, Flash flood, High velocity flow High velocity flow, Deep flood, Medium onset flood, Flash flood Flash flood, Medium onset flood, Deep flood, Other Fluvial Natural Fluvial Natural Flash flood of 17

13 Member State Source Mechanism Characteristics of APSFR with reported consequences Human Environment Cultural Health Heritage Fluvial Natural Medium onset flood Fluvial Natural Other Fluvial Natural Slow onset flood Economic Activity Fluvial Natural, Blockage/restriction Fluvial Natural, Defence Fluvial Natural, Defence Fluvial Natural, Defence Fluvial Natural, Defence Deep flood, Medium onset flood, Flash flood Deep flood, Medium onset flood, Flash flood Fluvial Natural, Defence Flash flood Fluvial Natural, Defence Fluvial Natural, Defence High velocity flow, Flash flood Medium onset flood, Flash flood 13 of

14 Member State Source Mechanism Characteristics of APSFR Human Health with reported consequences Environment Cultural Heritage Economic Activity Fluvial Natural, Defence Fluvial Natural Fluvial Natural, Blockage/restriction Medium onset flood, Flash flood, High velocity flow, Deep flood Flash flood, Medium onset flood Fluvial Natural, Blockage/restriction Fluvial Natural, Blockage/restriction Flash flood Flash flood, Debris flow Fluvial Natural, Defence, Natural, Defence Medium onset flood, High velocity flow, Deep flood, Flash flood Fluvial, Groundwater Natural Other Fluvial, Defence, Flash flood, Debris flow of 17

15 Member State Source Mechanism Characteristics Pluvial Blockage/restriction of APSFR Human Health with reported consequences Environment Cultural Heritage Economic Activity Fluvial, Pluvial Fluvial, Pluvial Natural Flash flood Natural Other Fluvial, Pluvial Natural, Blockage/restriction, Defence or Flash flood, Debris flow Fluvial, Pluvial Natural, Blockage/restriction Flash flood, High velocity flow Fluvial, Sea water Fluvial, Sea water Natural Other Other Pluvial Pluvial Natural Flash flood Pluvial Natural Medium onset flood Sea water Sea water Natural of 17

16 Member State Source Mechanism Characteristics of APSFR with reported consequences Human Environment Cultural Health Heritage Sea water Natural Other Economic Activity 16 of 17

17 International coordination MS were required to report how international cooperation had been achieved when undertaking a PFRA under Article 4; and also for APSFR under Article 5. Those applying Article 13.1.a are expected to have coordinated cooperation in the identification of APSFR but not necessarily for the PFRA. The relevant articles are: Article In the case of international river basin districts, or units of management referred to in Article 3(2)(b) which are shared with other Member States, Member States shall ensure that exchange of relevant information takes place between the competent authorities concerned. And; Article 5.2. The identification under paragraph 1 of areas belonging to an international river basin district, or to a unit of management referred to in Article 3(2)(b) shared with another Member State, shall be coordinated between the Member States concerned. of international UoMs in : 8 of non-international UoMs in : 17 Table 7 Mechanisms of international coordination for preparation of PFRAs and APSFRs Type of coordination Bilateral Border Waters Commissions, appointed on the basis of cooperation agreements with neighbouring countries (Albufeira Convention PT) International coordination and working groups responsible for advice, decision-making, coordination, progress of work and/or implementation (Albufeira Convention PT and Toulouse Agreement FR) Bilateral water/environment management agreement (Albufeira Convention PT and Toulouse Agreement FR) Provision of information to neighbouring countries (Morocco and Andorra) of UoMs PFRAs APSFRs of 17