Implementation of the EU Flood Directive ICPDR: Danube Basin Food Risk Management Plan Hungary: strategic development

Transcription

1 Implementation of the EU Flood Directive ICPDR: Danube Basin Food Risk Management Plan Hungary: strategic development International Conference September 7, 2015, Venezia Flood Risk Management Plans: international experiences by comparison KÁROLY GOMBÁS MSc in water engineering Fluvial flod protection NORTH-TRANSDANUBIAN WATER DIRECTORATE GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF WATER MANAGEMENT MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, HUNGARY CHAIRMAN FLOOD PROTECTION EXPERT GROUP (FP-EG) INTERNATONAL COMISSION OF THE DANUBE RIVER

2 ICPDR A legal frame for co-operation to assure the protection of water and ecological resources and their sustainable use in the Danube River Basin Regions Black Sea Danube Delta Drava Basin Sava Basin Tisza Basin Prut Basin Countries (14) Austria Bosnia-Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Germany Hungary Moldova Montenegro Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Ukraine

3 Mandate of ICPDR Basin-wide coordinative body, responsible for catchment oriented reporting Supportive contact point for projects and umbrella instrument, not direct management partner Permanent secretariat in Vienna since permanent groups and temporary or ad-hoc groups Angol rövidítés Angol név APC Accident Prevention and Control Bale APC-AEWS APC-Accident Emergency Warning System APC FP Flood Protection Árvíz IMGIS Information Management and GIS Info MA Monitoring and Assessment Mon MA-GWTG MA-Ground Water Task group MA- PM Pressures & Measures Terh PM-NTG PM-Nutrient Task Group PM- PP Public Participation Társ RBM River Basin Management Vízg RBM-E RBM-Economics RBM RBM-H RBM-Hydromorphology RBM Tisza Group Tisza group Tisza Ad-hoc S Ad-Hoc Strategic Ad-H Hydropower Team of Voluntary Experts for Hydropower Önk Climate Change Team of Voluntary Experts for Climate Change Önk Sediments Team of Voluntary Experts for Sediments Önk

4 Mandate of the FP-EG (Flood Protection Expert Group) Flood Protection Expert Group (FP-EG) is responsible mainly to deal with the issue of implemeting the the EU Flood Directive in the Danube River basin district and create the Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) with comprehensive list of measures and indicative list of proposed project ideas Reporting of floods (e.g Danube, 2014 Sava) Report on preliminary flood risk assessment and flood hazard/risk maps, visualisation of information, update of hydrometeorological summary document Recently added: Contact with EUSDR PA5, agenda point is open for solid conversation

5 Flood Risk Management Plan for the Danube River Basin District - general purpose ICPDR has a mandate to design flood risk management policies and propose respective measures and is responsible for preparation of the Flood risk management plan for the DRBD (level A), reported to EU FP-EG concluded that only the strategic level measures supported by best examples shall be presented in DFRMP Strategic level measures = basic prioritization criterion; Danube basin-wide project focus Solidarity principle = one should not pass on water management problems in one region to another Key priority on level A = measures with downstream effect (flood & natural water retention, warning systems, reduction of risk from contaminated sites in floodplain areas);

6 Flood Risk Management Plan for the Danube River Basin District - structure and content The plan itself is around 100 pages of text, tables and maps living docment General treshold for sub-basin appearance > km2 Title: Flood Risk Management Plan for the Danube River Basin District Annexes: 1. Flood hazard and risk maps 2. FRMP measures Avoidance of new risks Reduction of existing risks Strengthening resilience Raising awareness Solidarity principle + Project list 3. List Competent Authorities 4. Bilateral Agreements

7 Flood Risk Management Plan for the Danube River Basin District - structure and content The textual part has 75 pages with the available/provided national information The document has structured into 13 main chapters The aim of the plan is to have a horizontal overview of the national methodologies and results and sum up on the catchment level With the continous update of the document it is possible to follow the development of the basin ICPDR member countries are providing data on volunteer basis, based on their the actual status 1. Introduction 2. Conclusions of the preliminary flood risk assessment 3. Flood hazard maps and flood risk maps 4. Objectives 5. Measures 6. Water retention 7. Cost-benefit analysis 8. Coordination with WFD 9. Impacts of climate change 10.International coordination 11.Solidarity principle 12.Public information and consultation 13.Conclusions and next steps.

8 Flood Risk Management Plan for the Danube River Basin District - good practices (34 so far)

9 Flood Risk Management Plan for the Danube River Basin District - public consultation: Voice of the Danube End of 2014 the DFRMP was launched for public ocnsultation, having it availyable on ICPDR website Beginning of July in 2015 in Zagred, there was a public participation workshop, where over 80 stakeholders from a broad range of backgrounds stood the heat and expressed their views on the draft management plans for the Danube River. There were plenary sessions and separated group activities as well The commenting was open until 22nd of July, numerous hints arriwed, which wil be processed by the country representatives and the FP-EG

10 Flood Risk Management Plan for the Danube River Basin District - some conlcusions The availability of the data and plans are in widely different time frame The countries approach and methodology is not homogenous, there are diverse approaches even in neighbouring states The results are hard to combine even on sub-basin level, the platform of coordination/harmonization is in lower level: broder commissions

11 Flood Risk Management Plan for the Danube River Basin District - APSFR

12 Flood Risk Management Plan for the Danube River Basin District - Annex-I: FHM

13 Flood Risk Management Plan for the Danube River Basin District - some conlcusions The availability of the data and plans are in widely different time frame The countries approach and methodology is not homogenous, there are diverse approaches even in neighbouring states The results are hard to combine even on sub-basin level, the platform of coordination/harmonization is in lower level: broder commissions The DFRMP is very useful, the surrounding countries can extract information from each other and implement ideas to their domestics DFRMP Annex-II measure list enhances thee coordination with WFD-DRBMP and with project listing focal points can be emphasized Availability (public consultation version): National background information:

14 Implementation of the Flood Directive in Hungary Could we let the rivers flow as they want, giving up the blue areas? Obviously not. 25 % of the whole national territory is endangered by fluvial floods. EU Flood Directive APSFR areas. FLUVIAL FLOOD HAZARD AND PRIMARY DIKE SYSTEM

15 Implementation of Flood Directive in Hungary Occurance of water related damages, endangered assets What we do protect in reality. Floods: Small every 2-3 years Significant every 5-6 years Extraordinary every years Excess water: Drought: every 2-3 years every 3-5 years Potentially affected areas 40 % of the cultivated area 32% of railways 15% of main roads Settlements on the flood plain: 646 Population living on the flood plain: 2,3 million Estimated value of endangered assets: HUF billion = EUR 33.3 billion = USD 39 billio

16 Implementation of Flood Directive in Hungary National water services Resp. for EU FD+WFD (!)

17 Implementation of Flood Directive in Hungary Flood risk mapping and development of strategic risk management plan ÁKK - Árvízi kockázati térképezés és stratégiai kockázati terv készítése (KEOP B) Huge data acquistion and field geodesy work, purchasing meta information Building GIS database, coherent for the whole country + hydrology data ArcMAP modul, calling 1D and 2D models, centralized server-based structure Inbuilt risk calculation functions, land use development prognosis (30 y) Capable for analysis of measures and changing boundary conditions

18 Implementation of Flood Directive in Hungary Probability of the event probability of inundation (extraction: 30, 100, 1000 year events) 30y land use development scenarios CBA 110% treshold

19 Implementation of Flood Directive in Hungary

20

21 Implementation of Flood Directive in Hungary National reports Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment 2011 ( Hazard and risk maps 2013 (

22 Implementation of Flood Directive in Hungary Risk management possibilities Structural measures: Heightening the dikes very expensive and soil problems occur Building reservoirs Vásárhelyi plan along the Tisza, at Danube no space for that Non-structural, legal and regulatory measures: Good national and international cooperation (WG-F, ICPDR FP-EG, Border Comm.) Precise flood forecasting: continous development Raising awareness: municipality flood defence plans Recalculation of the design flood level (MÁSZ): legal update on 100y defence Sustainable floodplain management (plans): short and long term measures Facing the floods

23 Implementation of Flood Directive in Hungary Raising awareness: municipality flood defence plans ( ) After 2013 Danube flood more than 160 plans for settlements were carried out Unprotected, open floodplain situation: state financed preparation Hungarian Engineering Chamber guidence document (2010) need revision Development needs = input for measures in the Flood Management plans

24 Implementation of Flood Directive in Hungary Recalculation of the design flood level (MÁSZ ) 2014 Accomplished for all 2800 km diked rivers (!): 2013 Danube flood calls attention to flood propagation changes Scientific approach, even considering groundwater inflow and infiltration loss Definition of discharge probability in certain water gauges based on years data series; Generation of long-term discharge curves as boundary conditons and choosing HQ100 1D modeling with calibration of the recent events, calculation of longitudial profiles Came to legal force on 01/01/ ,5 higher levels on all reaches! Water level with coordinate points and rivers+dike section, 6 y update

25 Implementation of Flood Directive in Hungary Developing concept of sustainable fluvial flood damage protection Experience and technical knowledge lead to conceptudial progress. Classic fluvial flood protection: emerging dikes, forming floodplains with embankments, dealing with high ground water (excess water) - limitations: sedimentation, side-arm separation, riverbed lowering, subsoil problems and seepage, excess water pumping capacity, aerial sensitivity Retention: creating controlled reservoirs and retention ponds - limitations: large areas needed, new defense and maintenance lines, volume Sustainable floodplain management Get aware and improve of the conveyance capacity of the floodplain, controlling artificial and natural processes among the dikes. Main purpose is to keep or reduce the MÁSZ level

26 Implementation of Flood Directive in Hungary Sustainable floodplain management plans 2014 accomplished: All the 2800 km reaches (!) were 2D modeled and investigated based on MÁSZ Conveyance lanes, bank lines, elements in the flood plain, planned measures Legal consequences/limitations for every single field properties (state/private)

27 Implementation of Flood Directive in Hungary Sustainable floodplain management plans Further use: Measures = input of the Flood Management Plans Conbine necessary floodplain interventions with the WFD aims

28 National and transboundary issues in flood management HU Conclusions Main interests The main purpose of risk management is to handle the 100y flood levels, primary do interventions in the floodplain to reduce water level Important: balanced costs for long term strategic flood management, protection and maintenance ( war and peace ) as well = efficiency Bilateral connections and communication is essential, that s the operative level of the international cooperation; regular meetings and common bilateral program planning is needed Realize the measures by domestic budget (cohesion funds) or via international projects, evaluate the results ( ) Experiences: Complex methodology leads to extra resources and time pressure Uniform solutions are hard to set up but worth to invest the energy, since the results are easy to regenerate with different boundary conditions APSFR areas need to be reconsidered, adjustment needed at the borders Coordination with WFD is difficult due to alternative development

29 Thank You for your attention! ICPDR contact: Presenter: Photos: