RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING on the Council common position with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment and management of flood risks

9.3.2007 - (12131/6/06 – C6‑0038/2007 – 2006/0005(COD)) - ***II

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Rapporteur: Richard Seeber

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the Council common position with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment and management of flood risks

(12131/6/06 – C6‑0038/2007 – 2006/0005(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Council common position (12131/6/06 – C6‑0038/2007),

–   having regard to its position at first reading[1] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0015[2],

–   having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Rule 62 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6‑0064/2007),

1.  Approves the common position as amended;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Council common position	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 Recital 2
(2) Floods are natural phenomena which cannot be prevented. However, some human activities and climate change contribute to an increase in the likelihood and adverse impacts of flood events.	(2) Floods are natural phenomena which cannot be prevented. However, some human activities (such as increasing human settlements and economic assets in floodplains and the erosion and reduction of the natural water retention of land by cutting down forests and farming in river basins) and climate change contribute to an increase in the likelihood and adverse impacts of flood events.
Justification
Reinstatement, with slight changes, of the amendment from the first reading for the purposes of greater clarity (ex recital 2).
Amendment 2 Recital 4
(4) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy requires river basin management plans to be developed for each river basin district in order to achieve good ecological and chemical status, and it will contribute to mitigating the effects of floods. However, reducing the risk of floods is not one of the principal objectives of that Directive, nor does it take into account future risks of flooding caused by climate change.	(4) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy requires river basin management plans to be developed for each river basin district in order to achieve good ecological and chemical status, and it will contribute to mitigating the effects of floods. However, reducing the risk of floods is not one of the principal objectives of that Directive, nor does it take into account the more frequent risk of flooding in future as a result of climate change.
Justification
This amendment from the first reading (ex recital 9) is reinstated, with minor linguistic changes, to make clear that flood risk precautions must be stepped up in order to prevent the higher risk levels resulting from climate change; however, there is no need to carry out a detailed climate change forecast for each precautionary measure, since this would engender considerable and largely unjustifiable costs and would delay the drawing-up of plans where no reliable data are available.
Amendment 25 Recital 8 a (new)
	(8a) The provisions on sustainable flood risk management should be taken into account by the Member States and the Community when laying down and implementing all their policies, including for example transport policy, spatial planning, urban development, and industrialisation policy, agricultural policy, cohesion policy, energy policy and research policy.
Justification
Reinstatement of the amendment from the first reading. There is ample evidence that misdirected spatial planning, urban development, and industrialisation policies do much to increase the risk of floods. In order to achieve efficient flood risk management, it has to be integrated with other relevant policies, following the principle of the IRBM. There must be a strong coordination with other measures that may have an impact on flood risk management as well as with measures potentially affected by flood risk management.
Amendment 4 Recital 9
(9)Throughout the Community different types of floods occur, such as river floods, flash floods, urban floods and floods from the sea in coastal areas. The damage caused by flood events may also vary across the countries and regions of the Community. Hence, objectives regarding the management of flood risks should be determined by the Member States themselves and should be based on local and regional circumstances.	(9)Throughout the Community different types of floods occur, such as river floods, flash floods, urban floods, flooding from sewerage systems and floods from the sea in coastal areas. The damage caused by flood events may also vary across the countries and regions of the Community. Hence, objectives regarding the management of flood risks should be determined by the Member States themselves and should be based on local and regional circumstances.
Justification
This amendment reinstates the text from the first reading (ex recital 15). Flooding from sewerage systems should also be included within the scope of this directive.
Amendment 5 Recital 10
(10) Flood risks in certain areas within the Community could be considered not to be significant, for example in thinly populated or unpopulated areas or in areas with limited economic assets or ecological value. In each river basin district or unit of management the flood risks and need for further action should be assessed.	(10) Flood risks in certain areas within the Community could be considered not to be significant, for example in thinly populated or unpopulated areas or in areas with limited economic assets or ecological value. In each river basin district or unit of management the flood risks and need for further action – such as the evaluation of flood mitigation potential – should be assessed.
Justification
Reinstatement, with changes, of text from the first reading (ex recital 16).
Amendment 6 Recital 11
(11) In order to have available an effective tool for information, as well as a valuable basis for priority setting and further technical, financial and political decisions regarding flood risk management it is necessary to provide for the establishing of flood hazard maps and flood risk maps showing the potential adverse consequences associated with different flood scenarios.	(11) In order to have available an effective tool for information, as well as a valuable basis for priority setting and further technical, financial and political decisions regarding flood risk management it is necessary to provide for the establishing of flood hazard maps and flood risk maps showing the potential adverse consequences associated with different flood scenarios including the risk of environmental pollution as a consequence of floods.
	In this context, Member States should reassess direct or indirect subsidies to activities that have the effect of increasing flood risks.
Justification
A word-for-word reinstatement from the first reading (ex recital 17) for the purposes of greater clarity.
As Article 6(5) of the directive stipulates that flood risk maps should indicate potential adverse consequences, consistency demands that the risk associated with environmental pollution resulting from floods should be included in the recitals.
Amendment 7 Recital 12
(12) With a view to avoiding and reducing the negative impacts of floods in the area concerned it is appropriate to provide for flood risk management plans. The causes and consequences of flood events vary across the countries and regions of the Community. Flood risk management plans should therefore take into account the particular characteristics of the areas they cover and provide for tailored solutions according to the needs and priorities of those areas, whilst ensuring relevant coordination within river basin districts.	(12) With a view to avoiding and reducing the negative impacts of floods in the area concerned it is appropriate to provide for flood risk management plans. The causes and consequences of flood events vary across the countries and regions of the Community. Flood risk management plans should therefore take into account the particular characteristics of the areas they cover, taking also into consideration industrial and agricultural facilities and other possible sources of pollution of the area concerned with a view to preventing such pollution, and provide for tailored solutions according to the needs and priorities of those areas, whilst ensuring relevant coordination within river basin districts.
	In particular, Member States should refrain from measures which increase the risk of flooding in other Member States, and they should seek compensation within their own territory for limitations of the natural course of the river.
Justification
Reinstatement of the amendment from the first reading. Floods are natural phenomena. Floods pose a risk only to the human activities or uses undertaken in floodplains. As floods are often followed by accidental environmental pollution due to industrial, agricultural and other facilities on the area concerned, the flood risk management plans should take probable pollution sources into account.
Amendment 8 Recital 13
(13) Flood risk management plans should focus on prevention, protection and preparedness. The elements of flood risk management plans should be periodically reviewed and if necessary updated, taking into account the likely effects of climate change on the occurrence of floods.	(13) Flood risk management plans should focus on prevention, protection and preparedness. The elements of flood risk management plans should be periodically reviewed and if necessary updated, taking into account the likely effects of climate change on the occurrence of floods.
Justification
Linguistic amendment in German: does not affect the English version.
Amendment 9 Recital 14
(14) The solidarity principle is very important in the context of flood risk management. In the light of it Member States should be encouraged to seek a fair sharing of responsibilities, when measures are jointly decided for the common benefit, as regards flood risk management along water courses.	(14) The solidarity principle is very important in the context of flood risk management. In the light of it Member States should be encouraged to take joint measures which are of common benefit. In doing so, a fair sharing of responsibilities should be sought.
	The solidarity principle means that Member States work together to draw up plans and take measures to prevent floods and that Member States refrain from taking measures which increase the risk of flooding in another Member State, unless such a measure forms part of a common plan.
Justification
Recital 14 of the Common Position encourages Member States to seek to share responsibility fairly across borders for joint measures which have an impact in two or more countries. Fair sharing of responsibilities is the prime concern here, not efforts to identify possible joint measures. An important beneficial feature of the directive should be that it encourages Member States to seek measures across their borders which have a joint effect in two or more countries.
Amendment 10 Recital 16
(16) Development of river basin management plans under Directive 2000/60/EC and of flood risk management plans under this Directive are elements of integrated river basin management. The two processes should therefore use the mutual potential for common synergies and benefits, having regard to the environmental objectives of Directive 2000/60/EC, ensuring efficiency and wise use of resources while recognising that the competent authorities and management units might be different under this Directive and Directive 2000/60/EC.	(16) Development of river basin management plans under Directive 2000/60/EC and of flood risk management plans under this Directive are elements of integrated river basin management. The two processes should therefore use the mutual potential for common synergies and benefits, having regard to the environmental objectives of Directive 2000/60/EC, ensuring efficiency and wise use of resources.
Justification
Flood risk management is an important element of integrated river basin management, which is established by Directive 2000/60/EC. In order to benefit from mutual potential for common synergies and benefits between the directives ensuring efficiency and wise use of resources, the same unit of management should apply under this directive.
Amendment 11 Recital 16 a (new)
	(16a) Member States should base their assessments, maps and plans on the best data, practice and technologies available in the field of flood risk management.
Justification
This combines and clarifies two amendments from the first reading (ex recitals 22 and 24) relating to the use of new practices and technologies for the protection of citizens.
Amendment 12 Recital 17
(17) In cases of multi-purpose use of bodies of water for different forms of sustainable human activities (e.g. flood risk management, ecology, inland navigation or hydropower) and the impacts of such use on the bodies of water, Directive 2000/60/EC provides for a clear and transparent process for addressing such uses and impacts, including possible exemptions from the objectives of "good status" or of "non‑deterioration" in Article 4 thereof.	(17) In cases of multi-purpose use of bodies of water for different forms of sustainable human activities (e.g. flood risk management, ecology, inland navigation or hydropower) and the impacts of such use on the bodies of water, Directive 2000/60/EC provides for a clear and transparent process for addressing such uses and impacts, including possible exemptions from the objectives of "good status" or of "non-deterioration" in Article 4 thereof. The principle of cost-recovery, including environmental and resource costs, should apply to flood risk management measures and infrastructure in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC.
Amendment 13 Recital 18 a (new)
	(18a) In particular, the Commission should be able to determine the technical formats for the processing of data, including statistical and cartographic data, and the formats for their transmission to the Commission, as well as to adapt the Annex to scientific and technical advances. Since these are measures of general scope that amend non-essential provisions of this Directive and add new non-essential provisions, they should be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, set out under Decision 1999/468/EC.
Justification
This amendment makes the necessary adjustments in line with the new comitology procedure.
Amendment 14 Article 1
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the assessment and management of flood risks, aiming at the reduction of the adverse consequences for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity associated with floods in the Community.	The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the assessment and management of flood risks, aiming at the reduction of the adverse consequences for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity associated with floods in the Community. Furthermore it will help to attain the environmental objectives laid down in the Community legislation in force.
Justification
Reinstatement of the amendment from first reading (ex amendment 27): It is crucial that framework to manage flood risks does support the achievement of the objectives of other Community legislation.
Amendment 15 Article 3, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1
2. However, for the implementation of this Directive, Member States may:	2. However, for the implementation of this Directive, Member States may appoint competent authorities different from those identified pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC.
(a) appoint competent authorities different from those identified pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC;
(b) identify certain coastal areas or individual river basins and assign them to a unit of management different from those assigned pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC.
Justification
Flood risk management is an important element of integrated river basin management, which is established by Directive 2000/60/EC. In order to benefit from mutual potential for common synergies and benefits between the two directives and to ensure efficiency and wise use of resources, the same unit of management should be used under this directive.
Amendment 16 Article 4, paragraph 2, introductory part
2. A preliminary flood risk assessment shall be undertaken to provide an assessment of potential risks based on available or readily derivable information, such as records. The assessment shall include at least the following:	2. A preliminary flood risk assessment shall be undertaken to provide an assessment of potential risks based on available or readily derivable information, such as records and studies on long-term developments, in particular climate change. The assessment shall include at least the following:
Justification
This amendment combines and clarifies amendments from the first reading (ex Article 4(2)(c), (e) and (f).
Only existing studies on long-term developments, in particular climate change, should be taken into account in preliminary assessments.
Amendment 17 Article 4, paragraph 2, point (a)
(a) maps of the river basin district at the appropriate scale including the borders of the river basins, sub-basins and where appropriate coastal areas, showing topography and land use	(a) maps of the river basin district at the appropriate scale including the borders of the river basins, sub-basins and coastal areas, showing topography and land use;
Justification
Human activities are concentrated in the coastal areas which are particularly exposed to the likely effects of climate change. Therefore all coastal areas should be included into the preliminary flood risk assessment.
Amendment 18 Article 4, paragraph 2, introductory phrase before point (d)
and, where appropriate, it shall include:	deleted
Justification
This is an attempt to find a compromise between Parliament's position at first reading (which was that there should be no restriction) and the Council common position.
Amendment 19 Article 4, paragraph 2, point (d)
(d) an assessment of the potential adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, taking into account as far as possible issues such as the topography, the position of watercourses and their general hydrological and geo-morphological characteristics, the position of populated areas, areas of economic activity and long-term developments including impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods.	(d) an assessment of the potential adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, taking into account as far as possible issues such as the topography, the position of watercourses and their general hydrological and geo-morphological characteristics, the role that floodplains play as natural retention areas, the position of populated areas, areas of economic activity and long-term developments including impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods. Local conditions permitting, the above assessments need not be carried out obligatorily.
Justification
Reinstatement of the amendment from the first reading (ex Article 4(2)(c), as it is known that retention areas are crucial to flood protection.
This is also an attempt to reach a compromise between Parliament's position at first reading and the Council common position.
Amendment 20 Article 4, paragraph 2, point (d a) (new)
	(da) if need be, an assessment of the effectiveness of existing man-made flood defence infrastructures, taking into account their real capacity to prevent damage as well as their economic and environmental effectiveness.
Justification
Reinstatement of the amendment from the first reading (ex Article 4(2)(h)).
Amendment 21 Article 4, paragraph 4
4. Member States shall complete the preliminary flood risk assessment by 22 December 2012.	4. Member States shall complete the preliminary flood risk assessment by 22 December 2010.
Justification
Reinstatement of Parliament's original deadline in order to tighten the procedure (ex Article 6(1), amended).
Amendment 22 Article 5, paragraph 1
1. On the basis of a preliminary flood risk assessment as referred to in Article 4, Member States shall, for each river basin district, or unit of management referred to in Article 3(2)(b), or portion of an international river basin district lying within their territory, identify those areas for which they conclude that potential significant flood risks exist or might reasonably be considered likely to occur.	1. On the basis of a preliminary flood risk assessment as referred to in Article 4, Member States shall, for each river basin district, or unit of management referred to in Article 3(2)(b), or portion of an international river basin district lying within their territory, identify those areas for which they conclude that significant flood risks exist or might be considered likely to occur.
Justification
Simplification of language for better comprehensibility and legal clarity.
Amendment 23 Article 6, paragraph 3, point (c)
(c) floods with a high probability, where appropriate.	(c) floods with a high probability, wherever possible.
Justification
This is a compromise between Parliament's position, which does not provide for exceptions (ex Article 7(2)), and the Council's current position. Floods with a high probability should be taken into account as much as possible for the sake of public protection. The responsible bodies should only be permitted not to do so in the event that it is impossible and/or there are plausible grounds not to do so.
Amendment 24 Article 6, paragraph 4, point (c a) (new)
	(ca) floodplains and other natural areas that can serve as a retention or buffer area at present or in the future.
Justification
Reinstatement of the amendment from the first reading (Am. 156). The undeveloped areas that can flood naturally (e.g. floodplains) and perform a valuable water retention function, if not considered in the flood risk maps and management plans, could be targeted for development. They would then lose or weaken their important function of reducing flood risk, and the new assets placed there would be at risk. Therefore, it is necessary that these areas and the functions they perform are included/considered in the relevant flood risk maps and management plans to be drawn under this Directive.
Amendment 25 Article 6, paragraph 5, point (c)
(c) installations as referred to in Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control which might cause accidental pollution in case of flooding and potentially affected protected areas identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) and (v) to Directive 2000/60/EC;	(c) installations as referred to in Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control which might cause accidental pollution in case of flooding and potentially affected protected areas identified in Annex IV(1) to Directive 2000/60/EC;
Justification
Reinstatement of the amendment from the first reading (amendment 49). The register of protected areas required under article 6 of Directive 2000/60/EC should also include nutrient sensitive areas and areas designated for economically significant aquatic species. In compliance with Article 10 of the Directive 2000/60/EC, Member States are to carry out a combined approach concerning emissions from point and diffuse sources.
Amendment 26 Article 6, paragraph 5, point (d)
(d) other information which the Member State considers useful such as the indication of areas where floods with a high content of transported sediments and debris floods can occur.	(d) information on potential other point or diffuse sources of pollution where available, and other information which the Member State considers useful such as the indication of areas where floods with a high content of transported sediments and debris floods can occur and of floodplains and other natural areas that can serve as a retention or buffer area at present or in the future.
Justification
Point sources other than those covered by the IPPC Directive or potential diffuse sources of pollution should be excluded if information is available in Member States.
Reassertion of Parliament's position at first reading (see first paragraph of justification to Amendment 12).
Amendment 27 Article 7, paragraph 1
1. On the basis of the maps referred to in Article 6, Member States shall establish flood risk management plans coordinated at the level of the river basin district or unit of management referred to in Article 3(2)(b) for the areas identified under Article 5(1) and the areas covered by Article 13(1)(b) in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article.	1. On the basis of the maps referred to in Article 6, Member States shall establish and implement flood risk management plans coordinated at the level of the river basin district or unit of management referred to in Article 3(2)(b) for the areas identified under Article 5(1) and the areas covered by Article 13(1)(b) in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article.
Justification
Reintroduces Commission original wording to clarify that there is an obligation not only to establish plans but also to implement such plans.
Amendment 28 Article 7, paragraph 2
2. Member States shall establish appropriate objectives for the management of flood risks for the areas identified under Article 5(1) and the areas covered by Article 13(1)(b), focusing on the reduction of potential adverse consequences of flooding for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, and, if considered appropriate, on non-structural initiatives and/or on the reduction of the likelihood of flooding.	2. Member States shall establish appropriate objectives for the management of flood risks for the areas identified under Article 5(1) and the areas covered by Article 13(1)(b) focusing on the reduction of potential adverse consequences of flooding for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, and on non-structural initiatives and/or on the reduction of the likelihood of flooding. Human uses of floodplains should be adapted to the identified flood risks.
Justification
Reinstatement of the amendment from the first reading There needs to be a shift away from the traditional short-term paradigm of engineered flood defences, which often have failed to deliver their function, to an all-encompassing integrated flood risk management undertaken in the level of river basins, giving increased importance to non-structural, nature-related measures. Sustainable flood risk management addresses the root causes of floods and their devastating effects, and not just the symptoms.
Amendment 29 Article 7, paragraph 3, subparagraphs 1 and 2
3. Flood risk management plans shall include measures that aim at achieving the objectives established in accordance with paragraph 2 and shall include the components set out in Part A of the Annex.	3. The flood risk management plans shall achieve the levels of protection established in accordance with paragraph 2 and shall include the components set out in Part A of the Annex.
	Flood risk management plans include measures that work with natural processes such as maintenance and/or restoration of floodplains in order to give back space to the rivers wherever possible and promote appropriate land use and agricultural and forestry practices throughout the river basin.
Flood risk management plans shall take into account relevant aspects such as costs and benefits, flood extent and flood conveyance routes and areas which have the potential to retain flood water, the environmental objectives of Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC, soil and water management, spatial planning, land use, nature conservation, navigation and port infrastructure.	Flood risk management plans shall take into account relevant aspects such as costs and benefits, flood extent, the role of floodplain areas as a natural retention or buffer of floods and flood conveyance routes now or in the future, the objectives of Articles 1 and 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC, the objectives of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds1 and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora2, soil and water management, spatial planning, land use, nature conservation, navigation and port infrastructure.
	1 OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 807/2003 (OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 36).
	2 OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1).
Justification
The provisions of article 1 of the Water Framework Directive and objectives of Wild Birds and Habitats directives are also relevant.
Amendment 30 Article 7, paragraph 3 a (new)
	3a. Flood risk management measures, especially those related to building infrastructures, should be subject to sound and transparent economic and environmental appraisal to ensure a long-term viability of their service for citizens and businesses, taking into account the principle of cost-recovery, including environmental and resource costs.
Justification
Reinstatement of the amendment from the first reading (amendment 60). With flood levels increasing, traditional infrastructure measures are failing to provide flood protection and even pose a bigger risk of them breaking down. Therefore efficiency of existing infrastructure needs to be assessed in a comprehensive way, including also environmental and resource costs. And new flood management measures, if they are to deliver benefits for society, need to be subject to robust economic appraisal, which also has to include environmental and resource costs.
Amendment 31 Article 7, paragraph 4
4. Flood risk management plans established in one Member State shall not include measures which, by their extent and impact, significantly increase flood risks upstream or downstream of other countries in the same river basin or sub-basin, unless these measures have been coordinated and an agreed solution has been found among the Member States concerned in the framework of Article 8.	4. In the interests of solidarity, flood risk management plans must, where necessary, take account of measures in upstream or downstream areas. Flood risk management plans established in one Member State shall not include measures which, by their extent and impact, significantly increase flood risks upstream or downstream of other countries in the same river basin or sub-basin, unless these measures have been coordinated and an agreed solution has been found among the Member States concerned in the framework of Article 8.
Justification
This amendment is intended to express the solidarity principle in stronger terms, in line with Amendment 61 adopted at first reading. It is linked to Amendment 1 tabled by the same Member to Recital 14.
Amendment 32 Article 8, paragraph 1
1. For river basin districts or units of management referred to in Article 3(2)(b) which fall entirely within their territory, Member States shall ensure that one single flood risk management plan, or a set of flood risk management plans coordinated at the level of the river basin district, is produced.	1. For river basin districts or units of management referred to in Article 3(2)(b) which fall entirely within their territory, Member States shall ensure that one single flood risk management plan, or a set of flood risk management plans coordinated at the level of the river basin district, is produced. In doing so Member States may, subject to Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7, make use of existing plans and instruments if these afford comparable protection against flooding.
Justification
This is intended to prevent superfluous extra measures in Member States which have themselves already drawn up plans and taken measures. It accords with the Common Position, particularly Recital 21.
Amendment 33 Article 8, paragraph 2
2. Where an international river basin district or unit of management referred to in Article 3(2)(b) falls entirely within the Community, Member States shall ensure coordination with the aim of producing one single international flood risk management plan, or a set of flood risk management plans coordinated at the level of the international river basin district. Where such plans are not produced, Member States shall produce flood risk management plans covering at least the parts of the international river basin district falling within their territory, as far as possible coordinated at the level of the international river basin district.	2. Where an international river basin district or unit of management referred to in Article 3(2)(b) falls entirely within the Community, Member States shall ensure coordination with the aim of producing one single international flood risk management plan, or a set of flood risk management plans coordinated at the level of the international river basin district. Where such plans are not produced, Member States shall produce flood risk management plans covering at least the parts of the international river basin district falling within their territory, as far as possible coordinated at the level of the international river basin district. Member States shall refrain from taking measures or engaging in actions which increase the risk of flooding in downstream or upstream areas, unless they form part of a common plan to reduce the risk of flooding.
Justification
Is in line with the Common Position.
Amendment 34 Chapter V, Title
Coordination with Directive 2000/60/EC, public information and consultation	Coordination with Directive 2000/60/EC, public participation and consultation
Justification
Active involvement of all relevant stakeholders should be a pivotal element of the flood risk management as it allows for the integration and consideration of the views, needs and interests of water users and those affected by floods. Being informed is not enough.
Amendment 35 Article 9, point 1
(1) the development of the first flood hazard maps and flood risk maps and their subsequent reviews as referred to in Articles 6 and 14 of this Directive shall be carried out in such a way that the information they contain is consistent with relevant information presented according to Directive 2000/60/EC. They may, if considered appropriate, be further coordinated with, and integrated into, the reviews provided for in Article 5(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC;	(1) the development of the first flood hazard maps and flood risk maps and their subsequent reviews as referred to in Articles 6 and 14 of this Directive shall be carried out in such a way that the information they contain is consistent with relevant information presented according to Directive 2000/60/EC. They shall be coordinated with, and may be integrated into, the reviews provided for in Article 5(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC;
Justification
Compromise between the Council's and Parliament's position (ex Article 13(1)). There should be coordination with the Water Framework Directive, while integration into the Directive remains optional.
Amendment 36 Article 9, point 2
2) the development of the first flood risk management plans and their subsequent reviews as referred to in Articles 7 and 14 of this Directive shall be carried out, if considered appropriate, in coordination with, and may be integrated into, the reviews of the river basin management plans provided for in Article 13(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC;	2) the development of the first flood risk management plans and their subsequent reviews as referred to in Articles 7 and 14 of this Directive shall be carried out in coordination with, and integrated into, the reviews of the river basin management plans provided for in Article 13(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC;
Justification
Development of river basin management plans under Directive 2000/60/EC and of flood risk management plans under this Directive are elements of integrated river basin management. The two processes should therefore use the mutual potential for common synergies and benefits. The most cost-effective and sustainable way to develop any flood risk management measures is to integrate the 2 planning and reporting processes in order to avoid wasting administrative and public resources.
Amendment 37 Article 9, point 3
3) the active involvement of all interested parties under Article 10 of this Directive shall be coordinated, as appropriate, with the active involvement of interested parties under Article 14 of Directive 2000/60/EC.	3) the active involvement of all interested parties under Article 10 of this Directive shall be coordinated with the active involvement of interested parties under Article 14 of Directive 2000/60/EC.
Justification
Development of river basin management plans under Directive 2000/60/EC and of flood risk management plans under this Directive are elements of integrated river basin management. The two processes should therefore use the mutual potential for common synergies and benefits. The most cost-effective and sustainable way to develop any flood risk management measures is to integrate the 2 planning and reporting processes in order to avoid wasting administrative and public resources including requirements for public participation.
Amendment 38 Article 11
1. The Commission may, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 12(2), adopt technical formats for the purpose of processing and transmission of data, including statistical and cartographic data, to the Commission. The technical formats should be adopted at least two years before the dates indicated respectively in Articles 4(4), 6(8) and 7(5), taking into account existing standards as well as formats developed under relevant Community acts.	1. The Commission may, in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 12(2), adopt technical formats for the purpose of processing data, including statistical and cartographic data, and formats for the transmission of this data to the Commission, when non-essential provisions of this Directive are amended by addition. The technical formats should be adopted at least two years before the dates indicated respectively in Articles 4(4), 6(8) and 7(5), taking into account existing standards as well as formats developed under relevant Community acts.
2. The Commission may, taking into account the periods for review and updating and in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 12(2), adapt the Annex to scientific and technical progress.	2. The Commission may, taking into account the periods for review and updating and in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 12(2), adapt the Annex to scientific and technical progress.
Justification
This amendment makes the necessary adjustments in line with the new comitology procedure.
Amendment 39 Article 12, paragraph 2
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.	2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5a(1) to (4) and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.
The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.
Justification
This amendment makes the necessary adjustments in line with the new comitology procedure.
Amendment 40 Article 13, paragraphs 1 to 3
1. Member States may decide not to undertake the preliminary flood risk assessment referred to in Article 4 for those river basins, sub-basins or coastal areas where they have either:	1. Member States may decide not to undertake the preliminary flood risk assessment referred to in Article 4 for those river basins, sub-basins or coastal areas where they have either:
(a) already undertaken a risk assessment to conclude, before 22 December 2010, that a potential significant flood risk exists or might be reasonably considered likely to occur leading to the identification of the area among those referred to in Article 5(1) or	(a) already undertaken a risk assessment to conclude, before ...*, that a significant flood risk exists or might be considered likely to occur leading to the identification of the area among those referred to in Article 5(1) or
(b) decided, before 22 December 2010, to prepare flood hazard maps and flood risk maps and to establish flood risk management plans in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Directive.	(b) decided, before ...*, to prepare flood hazard maps and flood risk maps and to establish flood risk management plans in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Directive.
2. Member States may decide to make use of flood hazard maps and flood risk maps finalised before 22 December 2010, if such maps provide a level of information equivalent to the requirements of Article 6.	2. Member States may decide to make use of flood hazard maps and flood risk maps finalised before ...*, if such maps provide a level of information that fulfils the requirements of this Directive.
3. Member States may decide to make use of flood risk management plans finalised before 22 December 2010, provided the content of these plans is equivalent to the requirements set out in Article 7.	3. Member States may decide to make use of flood risk management plans finalised before ...*, provided the content of these plans is equivalent to the requirements set out in this Directive.
	_____ * Date of entry into force of this Directive.
Justification
Inclusion of Parliament's position from the first reading (ex Article 17). Preliminary work carried out by the Member States will be recognised provided it is completed by the time the Directive enters into force. An extension of the transitional period until 2010 is not appropriate, as it would not be in line with the principle of protecting existing work and there would be a risk of the Directive's objectives being circumvented.
Changes to the structure of the Directive mean that it is necessary to take account of the objectives resulting from any amendment of the Annex ('this Directive').
The wording from the first reading, 'fulfils', has been used (ex Article 17(2)).
Amendment 41 Article 16
The Commission shall, by 22 December 2018, and every six years thereafter, submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation of this Directive.	The Commission shall, by 22 December 2018, and every six years thereafter, submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation of this Directive. The impact of climate change shall be taken into account in drawing up this report.
Justification
This reflects Parliament's position at first reading (ex Article 19). The negative impact of climate change should not be ignored by this directive and should be mentioned explicitly at this point.
Amendment 42 Annex, heading A, section I, point 4 a (new)
	4a) a prioritisation of the measures that promote the prevention of damage according to the "non- deterioration" and/or "good ecological, chemical and quantitative status" objectives of Directive 2000/60/EC such as:
	- protecting wetlands and floodplains,
	- restoring degraded wetlands and floodplains (including river meanders), especially those that reconnect rivers with their floodplains,
	- removing obsolete flood defence infrastructures from rivers,
	- preventing further construction (infrastructures, housing, etc.) in floodplains,
	- promoting construction measures to upgrade existing buildings (such as pile foundation),
	- supporting sustainable land use practices in catchment areas, such as reforestation, in order to improve natural water retention and groundwater recharge,
	- prior authorisation or registration for permanent activities in floodplains such as construction and industrial development.
Justification
Reinstatement of the amendment from the first reading (amendment 37). See justification to Article 7, paragraph 2 (Lienemann).

• [1]  Texts Adopted, 13.6.2006, P6_TA(2006)0253.
• [2]  Not yet published in OJ.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

1. Introduction:

The Commission adopted its proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment and management of floods on 18 January 2006.

The European Parliament delivered its opinion at first reading on 13 June 2006.

The Committee of the Regions decided not to deliver an opinion.

The Economic and Social Committee delivered its opinion on 17 May 2006.

The Council adopted its common position on 23 November 2006.

2. Background:

The directive's aim is to create a legislative framework for the assessment and management of flood risks in order to protect human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity.

This aim is to be achieved by means of a three-stage approach. First, there will be an initial flood risk assessment to identify areas at risk, followed by flood mapping and, thirdly, by the drawing-up of flood risk management plans for river basins.

In view of the differing geographical and hydrological conditions and settlement structures in the Member States, the directive grants them a considerable degree of flexibility in determining the required level of protection and the measures to be taken.

3. Changes introduced by the common position:

The common position contains a number of amendments from Parliament's first reading, which were accepted either in full or partially. The common position also significantly alters the structure of the directive. Although the Council's version brings structural clarity in some places, it has failed to incorporate some of Parliament's important amendments or has watered them down.

Not only should the Council common position be altered to rectify some instances of unclear use of language and legally imprecise wording but a series of amendments from Parliament's first reading should also be reintroduced.

Before the rapporteur can accept the common position, it is essential that further improvements are made, as the following makes clear:

1) Climate change:

Evidence of climate change and the public debate it is provoking mean that it is incomprehensible not to suitably assess and take account of its impact on the risk of flooding in the preliminary flood risk assessment. The rapporteur is aware that no extensive new data can be produced for a preliminary assessment, but use should be made of existing data. It will not be easy to explain to European citizens that the issue of climate change has been ignored in this fundamental assessment.

2) Deadlines:

To ensure a fast-moving procedure, the original deadlines for the completion of preliminary work should be reintroduced.

Unlike the Council, the rapporteur is convinced that changes are needed with regard to the preliminary work carried out by the Member States in order to protect existing work. For this reason, amendments from the first reading are being re-tabled. It would not be advisable to extend the validity of the clause on existing work until 2010 i.e. beyond the date on which the directive enters into force, as this would not be in line with the principle of protecting existing work and there would be a risk of the directive's objectives being circumvented.

3) Comitology:

The changes made by Council Decision 2006/512/EC of 17 July 2006 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission

(comitology) logically require adjustments to be made, which are proposed here by the rapporteur.

4) Coordination with the Water Framework Directive:

With regard to coordination and integration between this directive and Directive 2000/60/EC, the Council common position removes the requirement for close coordination, making it optional. Coordination with the Water Framework Directive should be the aim when drawing up flood risk and hazard maps. Integration of the maps into the Framework Directive is, however, to remain optional.

5) Retention areas and flood mitigation potential:

Members believe that if areas that can potentially perform a valuable role in retaining floods are ignored in the preliminary assessments and the drawing-up of flood risk maps and management plans there is a danger that not enough will be done to reduce the risk of flooding.

6) Policy integration:

In order to achieve efficient flood risk management, it has to be integrated with other relevant policies.

7) Solidarity principle:

Members see a need to include this principle explicitly for upstream and downstream countries/ regions.

8) Right of continuance:

The rapporteur and some Members seek to strengthen the idea of allowing member States to use already existing work.

9) Effectiveness of flood defences:

An assessment on the economic and environmental effectiveness is reintroduced by some Members.

PROCEDURE

Title	Flood assessment and management
References	12131/6/2006 - C6-0038/2007 - 2006/0005(COD)
Date of Parliament’s first reading – P number	13.6.2006                     T6-0253/2006
Commission proposal	COM(2006)0015 - C6-0020/2006
Date receipt of common position announced in plenary	18.1.2007
Committee responsible        Date announced in plenary	ENVI 18.1.2007
Rapporteur(s)        Date appointed	Richard Seeber 29.11.2005
Discussed in committee	30.1.2007
Date adopted	27.2.2007
Result of final vote	+: -: 0:	49 5 1
Members present for the final vote	Adamos Adamou, Georgs Andrejevs, Liam Aylward, Pilar Ayuso, Irena Belohorská, Johannes Blokland, John Bowis, Frieda Brepoels, Hiltrud Breyer, Martin Callanan, Dorette Corbey, Chris Davies, Avril Doyle, Mojca Drčar Murko, Jill Evans, Anne Ferreira, Matthias Groote, Françoise Grossetête, Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines, Satu Hassi, Jens Holm, Dan Jørgensen, Christa Klaß, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Holger Krahmer, Urszula Krupa, Jules Maaten, Linda McAvan, Alexandru-Ioan Morţun, Riitta Myller, Péter Olajos, Miroslav Ouzký, Antonyia Parvanova, Frédérique Ries, Guido Sacconi, Daciana Octavia Sârbu, Karin Scheele, Carl Schlyter, Richard Seeber, Bogusław Sonik, María Sornosa Martínez, Thomas Ulmer, Anja Weisgerber, Åsa Westlund, Anders Wijkman
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Christofer Fjellner, Milan Gaľa, Hélène Goudin, Jutta Haug, Karin Jöns, Henrik Lax, Andres Tarand
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	Catherine Stihler, Elisa Ferreira