6.1 Integrated Water Management for Quality and Quantity
145
each step and the monitoring procedures. These Directives are called Framework Directives because they offer a framework implemented and enforced by each Member State.
According to existing structures and legislation in Member States the way on how to implement and fulfill the requirements differ reasonably. Some Member States already have
comprehensive administrative structures in place taking over the responsibility for river
basins and their management, some are already running thorough monitoring systems on
ecological and chemical parameters. If Member States are not in that situation they should
have the chance to develop necessary structures and methods adapted and tailor-made for
their context.
Regarding the FRMD different approaches exist on how to protect people against
flooding. Some of them have been described in Chap. 5, for example, the Dutch and the
German. The result of these different approaches seems to be rather similar, that is, high
and strong dikes as protection against storm surges. The way how to determine the height
or the structure of these construction differs significantly. The Dutch approach is based on
the probability and is shifted in recent years to a more risk-based approach. The German
approach, especially in Lower Saxony, is based on accomplishing safety not taking a risk
approach. Although many parts of the chain for flood risk management do exist. These
approaches have to be adapted according to the requirements of the FRMD. In Germany,
flood hazard or flood risk maps are existing, but the information content is disappointing, because the currently published maps are calculated by subtracting the elevation of
the area from the respective design water level of this area. The result should indicate the
height of the water level in that area in case of flooding (e.g., dike failure). Neither the topography nor existing infrastructure was taken into account, because fundamental data is
partly missing or the available methods do not fulfill legal requirements in German. Until
now the flood prone area is determined as the area which is protected by the main dikes. It
is based on the calculated design water level of the respective area which is then connected
to a certain contour line (e.g., if the design water level is approx. 5 m so the inland border
of the protected area is confined by the 5 m contour line).
Subsequently, these different approaches have to be adjusted to the requirements of the
FRMD. Following the Dutch case it is easier, as shown in this chapter by enhancing the
probability-based approach to a risk-based approach (see Sect. 6.1.4). Although, for the
full transition to a risk-based approach many challenges have to be tackled.
Exercise
1. The description of the WFD on p. 121 provide a first overview on the development
background and the intention of each Directive. Find information on the current
status of implementation of both Directive in selected Member States.
2. Compare the approaches of your selection. What are the differences, what are the
similarities? Which Member States still have not implemented the FRMD?
3. The FloodSite project has briefly been touched to introduce the term flood risk
management on p. 132. Flood risk management consists of three compartments
145
each step and the monitoring procedures. These Directives are called Framework Directives because they offer a framework implemented and enforced by each Member State.
According to existing structures and legislation in Member States the way on how to implement and fulfill the requirements differ reasonably. Some Member States already have
comprehensive administrative structures in place taking over the responsibility for river
basins and their management, some are already running thorough monitoring systems on
ecological and chemical parameters. If Member States are not in that situation they should
have the chance to develop necessary structures and methods adapted and tailor-made for
their context.
Regarding the FRMD different approaches exist on how to protect people against
flooding. Some of them have been described in Chap. 5, for example, the Dutch and the
German. The result of these different approaches seems to be rather similar, that is, high
and strong dikes as protection against storm surges. The way how to determine the height
or the structure of these construction differs significantly. The Dutch approach is based on
the probability and is shifted in recent years to a more risk-based approach. The German
approach, especially in Lower Saxony, is based on accomplishing safety not taking a risk
approach. Although many parts of the chain for flood risk management do exist. These
approaches have to be adapted according to the requirements of the FRMD. In Germany,
flood hazard or flood risk maps are existing, but the information content is disappointing, because the currently published maps are calculated by subtracting the elevation of
the area from the respective design water level of this area. The result should indicate the
height of the water level in that area in case of flooding (e.g., dike failure). Neither the topography nor existing infrastructure was taken into account, because fundamental data is
partly missing or the available methods do not fulfill legal requirements in German. Until
now the flood prone area is determined as the area which is protected by the main dikes. It
is based on the calculated design water level of the respective area which is then connected
to a certain contour line (e.g., if the design water level is approx. 5 m so the inland border
of the protected area is confined by the 5 m contour line).
Subsequently, these different approaches have to be adjusted to the requirements of the
FRMD. Following the Dutch case it is easier, as shown in this chapter by enhancing the
probability-based approach to a risk-based approach (see Sect. 6.1.4). Although, for the
full transition to a risk-based approach many challenges have to be tackled.
Exercise
1. The description of the WFD on p. 121 provide a first overview on the development
background and the intention of each Directive. Find information on the current
status of implementation of both Directive in selected Member States.
2. Compare the approaches of your selection. What are the differences, what are the
similarities? Which Member States still have not implemented the FRMD?
3. The FloodSite project has briefly been touched to introduce the term flood risk
management on p. 132. Flood risk management consists of three compartments