Floodwise Projekt englisch - LfU · The Elbe is the largest river of the FLOOD-WISE project. The...

Characteristics and cross-border cooperation within

the river basins of the

FLOOD-WISE project

©2010 D.François, J. Kikken, P. Moiret, J. Paulzen and B. Stevens

Zuyd University for Applied Sciences Maastricht, the Netherlands

Edited by Dr. F. van den Brink

Province of Limburg, the Netherlands

Preface

This report is written by 5 students of Maastricht Zuyd University for Applied Sciences, Faculty of

International Communication, Department of European Studies, as part of the project Europe Calling

( February 2010 to June 2010), and as part of the preparation of the FLOOD-WISE project.

The project group consists of 4 Dutch students: Jim Kikken, Bo Stevens, Jasmina Paulzen, Daphne

François and one French exchange student, Pauline Moiret. The project has been supervised by Mr.

Jean Pluis of Maastricht Zuyd University for Applied Sciences and coached by Dr. Fred van den Brink,

senior policy advisor on water management of the Province of Limburg, partner/co-initiator of the

FLOOD-WISE project and by Ir. Alfred Evers of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine, lead applicant/initiator of

the FLOOD-WISE project.

General Summary

In this report the six different river basins of the FLOOD-WISE project are described: Elbe, Sava,

Meuse, Western Bug, Somes and Rur. Their general characteristics, communicative aspects, legal

aspects and policy aspects are elaborated on, which vary significantly for each river basin. The fact

that they differ in geography brings along consequences for all aspects of the river and its catchment

area.

The Elbe is the largest river of the FLOOD-WISE project. The most important purpose of the river is

waterway transport. The two FLOOD-WISE partners of the Elbe river basin- the Saxon State Agency

for Environment, Agriculture and Geology and the Brandenburg State Office for Environment, both

in Germany – cooperate in order to reduce flood-risk. However, the Saxon State Agency for

Environment, Agriculture and Geology has a more international approach towards flood risk

management than its counterpart from Brandenburg. From a legislative angle, Germany has

translated the FRMD into the Wasserhaushaltsgesetz (WHG). Policies regarding flood-management

vary between the two federal states.

The Sava river is the second largest tributary to the Danube river and it is the second largest river

basin involved in the FLOOD-WISE project. A lot of effort has been put in improving flood policies,

cross-border cooperation and communication in the Sava river basin. Especially the International

Sava River Basin Commission was a good initiative. The languages used between cross-border

authorities are the own languages of the countries, Croatian and Slovenian, but language is not

regarded a barrier for good communication and cooperation. When it comes to legislation, Croatia

has not yet converted the FRMD (Flood Risk Management Directive) into national legislation.

The Meuse is the third largest river of the FLOOD-WISE project, flowing through France, Belgium and

the Netherlands. An example of good cross border cooperation between the countries is the

International Meuse Commission, which meets three or four times a year. However, considering the

large amount of countries within the river basin, language is seen as a barrier for good

communication, just like many other differences between the countries, such as for example

divergent policies and interests. All countries within the river basin are EU member- states and thus

have converted the FRMD into national legislation.

The fourth largest river of the FLOOD-WISE project is the Western Bug. It forms the natural border

between Poland and Ukraine and between Poland and Belarus. It is one of the few European rivers

where the natural character of the river bed has been mostly preserved along its entire length.

Therefore the challenge is to combine flood-control measures with ecological solutions, using the

river’s own retention potential while preserving its natural character. Cross-border communication

between the three countries of the FLOOD-WISE partners of the Western Bug – Poland, Ukraine and

Belarus - is problematic, mainly because of different administration systems, different interests and

different policies. Since Belarus is not an EU-member, it has not (yet) converted the FRMD into

national legislation.

The Somes is one of the most important tributaries of the Tisza River (a main tributary of the

Danube). The Somes is the fifth largest river of the six rivers of the FLOOD-WISE project. There are

not that many barriers in communication and cooperation between the two partners apart from

different administration systems. In spite of the fact that Hungary has not yet converted the FRMD

into Hungarian legislation as opposed to Romania, legislative barriers are not present within cross-

border cooperation between the two countries.

The river Rur is the smallest river in the FLOOD-WISE project situated in an exceptionally highly

populated area. The fact that the Rur is very small, is probably an important reason why the FLOOD-

WISE partners, coming from Germany and the Netherlands, do not report a lot of problems in their

cross-border communication practices. From a legislative angle the Rur river basin can be considered

as rather harmonized. The FRMD is converted into national law and with regard to other legal issues

there are no obstructions mentioned.

Allgemeine Zusammenfassung

In diesem Dokument werden die sechs verschiedene Flussbecken des FLOOD-WISE Projekts

beschrieben: die Elbe, die Save, die Maas, der Westliche Bug, die Samosch und die Rur. Ihre

allgemeinen Eigenschaften und ihre kommunikativen, juristischen und politischen Aspekte werden in

diesem Dokument näher ausgeführt. Die Tatsache, dass jeder einzelne Fluss eine unterschiedliche

geografische Lage hat, hat groβe Folgen für alle Aspekte der Flussbecken und ihrer Einzugsgebiete.

Die Elbe ist der größte Fluss des FLOOD-WISE Projekts. Sie wird vor allem genutzt für den

Wassertransport. Die zwei FLOOD-WISE Partner des Elbe-Flussbeckens - das Sächsische

Staatministerium für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie und das Landesumweltamt Brandenburg

(LUA), welche sich in verschiedenen Bundesländern Deutschlands befinden - arbeiten eng

zusammen mit dem Zweck die Überschwemmungsgefahr zu reduzieren. Das Sächsisches

Staatministerium für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie hat allerdings eine internationaler

gefärbte Herangehensweise in Bezug auf das Überschwemmungsmanagement. Weiterhin hat

Deutschland die Richtlinie der FRMD (Flood Risk Management Directive) bereits in der deutschen

Gesetzgebung umgesetz, namentlich als das Wasserhaushaltsgesetz (WHG) bezeichnet. Die Politik

des Überschwemmungsmanagements unterscheidet sich zwischen den zwei Bundesländern.

Die Save ist der zweitgröβte Nebenfluss der Donau und sie ist ebenfalls der zweitgröβte Fluss des

FLOOD-WISE Projekts. Es wurde stark investiert in die Verbesserung der

Überschwemmungsmanagementpolitik sowie in grenzübergreifende Zusammenwirkung und die

Kommunikation zu diesem Flussbecken. Eine weit reichender Schritt war die Gründung der

Internationalen Kommission des Save Flussbeckens. Die Sprachen, welche hauptsächlich für die

Kommunikation zwischen grenzübergreifenden Autoritäten benutzt werden sind Kroatisch und

Slovenisch. Allerdings empfinden diese Autoritäten keine sprachbedingten

Kommunikationsprobleme. Weiterhin hat Kroatien die FRMD noch nicht umgesetzt in nationale

Gesetzgebung.

Die Maas ist der drittgröβte Fluss des Projekts. Er flieβt durch drei verschiedene Länder: Frankreich,

Belgien und die Niederlande. Das Zusammenwirken zwischen den Länder verläuft weiterhin

verhältnismäßig gut, unter anderem dank der Internationalen Maaskomission, welche drei bis

viermal jährlich zusammenkommt. Dennoch empfinden die Partner dieses Flussbeckens auch

Probleme, sowie sprachbedingte Kommunikationshemmnisse und Probleme die verursacht werden

durch die unterschiedlichen Herangehensweisen und die unterschiedlichen Interessen in Bezug auf

Überschwemmungsmanagement. Aus juristischer Sicht, haben Frankreich, Belgien sowie die

Niederlände die FRMD bereits umgesetz in das jeweilige nationales Recht.

Der viertgröβte Fluss des FLOOD-WISE Projects ist der Westliche Bug. Sie formt die natürliche Grenze

zwischen Polen und Ukrain und zwischen Polen und Belarus. Sie ist eine der wenige europeische

Flüsse, wessen natürliche Charakter behalten wurde über die ganze Länge. Deswegen ist es eine

Herausforderung, ökologische Lösungen zu kombinieren mit Maβnahmen die Überschwemmungen

hervorbeugen. Dabei soll das eigene Retentionspotential des Flusses benutz werden und gleichzeitig

soll dessen natürliche Charakter behalten bleiben.

Grenzüberschreitende Kommunikation zwisschen den drei Partner des Projekts –welche sich in drei

verschiedene Länder befinden – verläuft mühsam, vor allem wegen der vielen verschiedenen

Sprachen und unterschiedlichen Politik. Belarus ist das einzige Land innerhalb des Flussbeckens des

Westlichen Bugs, dass die FRMD bereits in die nationale Gesetzgebung übernommen hat.

Die Samosch ist einer der wichtigsten Nebenflüsse der Theiβ (ein Hauptnebenfluss der Donau) und

zugleich der fünftgröβte Fluss des FLOOD-WISE Projekts. Das Zusammenwirken zwischen den

FLOOD-WISE Partnern dieses Flussbeckens verläuft relativ problemlos. Es werden nur sehr wenige

Kommunikationsbarrieren oder andere Hemmnisse für eine gute Kooperation empfunden. Trotz der

Tatsache, dass Ungarn die FRMD im Gegenteil zu Rumänien schon in nationale Gesetzgebung

umgesetzt hat, gibt es keine juristisch bedingten Schwierigkeiten in Bezug auf grenzübergreifende

Zusammenarbeit zwischen beiden Ländern.

Die Rur ist der kleinste Fluss des FLOOD-WISE Projekts, welcher sich aber in einem auβergewöhnlich

dicht bevölkerten Gebiet befindet. Die Tatsache, dass die Rur nur ein kleiner Fluss ist, ist

warscheinlich ein wichtiger Grund für die problemlose Zusammenarbeit zwischen den deutschen

und den niederländischen Partner des FLOOD-WISE Projekts in diesem Flussbecken. Es werden

juristisch gesehen keine Probleme durch die Partner empfunden und weiterhin ist anzumerken, dass

die FRMD bereits in beiden Ländern in nationales Recht umgesetzt worden ist.

Résumé Général

Dans ce rapport, les six bassins fluviaux du projet FLOOD-WISE sont décrits: l'Elbe, la Save, la Meuse, le Bug à l'Ouest, le Somes et la Roer. Les caractéristiques générales des bassins ainsi que les aspects communicatifs, juridiques et politiques en matière de gestion des risques d’inondation y sont détaillés. Ceux-ci varient de façon significative pour chaque bassin hydrographique. En effet, leurs différentes implantations géographiques impliquent des conséquences sur tous les aspects des rivières et de leurs bassins versant. L'Elbe est le plus grand fleuve du projet FLOOD-WISE. Il est principalement utilisé comme voie navigable. Le bassin de l'Elbe comptent deux partenaires FLOOD-WISE,- l’Agence d’Etat Saxon pour l'agriculture, l'environnement et la géologie (The Saxon State Agency for environment, agriculture and geology) et l’Office d’Etat Brandebourg pour l’Environnement (The Brandenburg State Office for Environnent), opérant tout deux en Allemagne. Ils collaborent activement en vue de réduire les risques d'inondation. Toutefois, l’Agence d’Etat Saxon pour l'agriculture, l'environnement et la géologie a une approche plus internationale en matière de gestion des risques d'inondation que son homologue du Land de Brandebourg. Du point de vue législatif, l'Allemagne a traduit le FRMD dans le Wasserhaushaltsgesetz (WHG). Les politiques de gestion des inondations varient entre les deux Etats fédéraux.

La Save, deuxième plus grand affluent du Danube est aussi le deuxième plus grand bassin impliqué dans le projet FLOOD-WISE. Beaucoup d'efforts ont été fournis en matière de politiques de gestion des inondations, de la coopération transfrontalière et de la communication dans ce bassin. Surtout, la Commission Internationale du bassin de la Save (International Sava River Basin Commission) fut une bonne initiative. Même si les autorités transfrontalières utilisent leur propres langues pour communiquer : le Croate et le Slovène, la langue n'est pour autant pas considérée comme un obstacle à une bonne communication et à une bonne coopération. Concernant l’aspect législatif, la Croatie n'a pas encore converti le FRMD (directives de gestion émanant du projet FLOOD-WISE) dans leur législation nationale.

Troisième plus grand fleuve du projet FLOOD-WISE, la Meuse traverse la France, la Belgique et les Pays-Bas. C’est un exemple de bonne coopération transfrontalière entre les pays, qui se réunissent à la Commission Internationale de la Meuse (International Meuse Commission) trois à quatre fois par an. Toutefois, compte tenu du grand nombre de pays partageant le bassin de la Meuse, la langue est bien souvent considérée comme un obstacle à une communication efficace, de même que les divergences en matière de politiques et d’intérêt propre à chaque pays. En tant que membres de l’UE, tous les pays du bassin ont converti le FRMD dans leur législation nationale.

La quatrième plus grande rivière du projet FLOOD-WISE est le Bug de l'Ouest. Il constitue une frontière naturelle entre la Pologne et l'Ukrain et entre la Pologne et la Biélorussie. C’est l'un des rares cours d’eau d'Europe où le caractère naturel du lit du fleuve a été en grande partie préservé sur toute sa longueur. Par conséquent, le défi est de combiner les mesures de gestion des inondations avec des solutions écologiques, en utilisant le propre potentiel de rétention de la rivière, tout en préservant son caractère naturel. La communication transfrontalière entre les trois pays partenaires du projet FLOOD-WISE du Bug de l'Ouest - la Pologne, l'Ukraine et la Biélorussie - est problématique, principalement en raison des différents systèmes administratifs, des intérêts divergeant et des différentes politiques. Comme la Biélorussie n'est pas un membre de l'UE, ce pays n'a pas (encore) converti le FRMD dans la législation nationale.

Le Somes est l'un des plus importants affluents de la rivière Tisza (un affluent principal du Danube). Il est le cinquième plus grand fleuve des six rivières du projet FLOOD-WISE. Il n’existe pas d’obstacles majeurs au niveau de la communication et de la coopération entre les deux partenaires en dehors des différents systèmes d'administration. Même si la Hongrie n'a pas encore

converti le FRMD dans sa législation, par opposition à la Roumanie, les obstacles législatifs ne sont pas présents au sein de la coopération transfrontalière.

La Roer est la plus petite rivière du projet FOOD-WISE. Elle située dans une zone extrêmement peuplée. Sa petite superficie est probablement une des raisons principales pour laquelle les partenaires du projet FOOD-WISE, Allemands et Néerlandais, rencontrent peu de problèmes dans leur communication transfrontalière. Du point de vue législatif, le bassin de la Roer peut être considéré comme plutôt harmonisées. Le FRMD est en effet converti en législation national et aucun autre obstacle juridique n’a été mentionné.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Aim of the report .......................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Structure ....................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Justification of Research Methods ...................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Research methods ........................................................................................................................ 4

2.2 Construction of questions ............................................................................................................. 4

2.3 Characteristics of population ........................................................................................................ 4

3. General Research Results.................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 General river basin information .................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Frequency of cross-border contact ............................................................................................... 8

3.2.1 Frequency of cross- border meetings .................................................................................... 8

3.2.2 Frequency of cross- border telephone contact ..................................................................... 8

3.3 Communicative aspects ................................................................................................................ 9

3.3.1 Language as a barrier ............................................................................................................. 9

3.3.2 Other barriers....................................................................................................................... 10

3.3.3 Involvement of inhabitants .................................................................................................. 11

3.4 Legal aspects ............................................................................................................................... 12

3.4.1 FRMD and international treaties ......................................................................................... 12

3.4.2 International river commissions .......................................................................................... 12

3.5 Policy aspects .............................................................................................................................. 13

3.5.1 Flood-risk maps .................................................................................................................... 13

3.5.2 Flood-risk management strategies ...................................................................................... 13

3.5.3 Use of floodplains ................................................................................................................ 14

3.5.4 Experienced conflicts when implementing flood-risk management strategies .................. 14

3.6 General Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 15

3.7 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 16

4. Results per River Basin ...................................................................................................................... 17

4.1 The Elbe river basin ..................................................................................................................... 17

4.1.1 General river basin information ........................................................................................... 17

4.1.2 Cross-border cooperation .................................................................................................... 19

4.1.3 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 22

4.2 The Sava river basin .................................................................................................................... 23



4.2.3 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 28

4.3 The Meuse river basin ................................................................................................................. 30



4.3.3 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 37

4.4 The Western Bug river basin ....................................................................................................... 39



4.4.3 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 43

4.5 The Somes river basin ................................................................................................................. 45


4.5.2 Cross border cooperation .................................................................................................... 48

4.5.3 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 50

4.6 The Rur river basin ...................................................................................................................... 52

4.6.1 General River basin Information .......................................................................................... 52

4.6.2 Cross border cooperation .................................................................................................... 54

4.6.3 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 55

5. Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................... 57

Literature .......................................................................................................................................... 57

World Wide Web .............................................................................................................................. 57

Pictures and Figures .......................................................................................................................... 58

World Wide Web pictures ................................................................................................................ 58

Appendix 1 – Partner letter .................................................................................................................. 60

Appendix 2 – Questionnaire ................................................................................................................. 61

Appendix 3 – River basin characteristic schemes ................................................................................ 66

1

1. Introduction

This report is part of the preparation of the FLOOD-WISE project. Within this project there are 15

partners from six international river basins in Europe: Sava, Bug, Meuse, Elbe, Somes and Rur,

representing seven EU member-state countries and three non-EU countries (Figure 1.1). FLOOD-

WISE stands for ‘Sustainable Flood Management Strategies for Cross Border River Basins’. The

FLOOD-WISE project is an EU funded project aiming at the exchange of knowledge and experiences

on integrated and sustainable flood-risk management on a river basin scale, to improve strategies

and policy instruments in participating partner regions. This will be done by exploring the potential

optimal use of the Flood Risk Management Directive (FRMD) tools through 'ex-ante' evaluated

exercises (case-studies) to prepare for the actual implementation of this new directive.

Figure 1.1 Locations of FLOOD-WISE river basins

2

The aim of the FRMD is to reduce and manage the risks that floods pose to public safety, the

environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. The directive requires member states to first

carry out a preliminary assessment by 2011 to identify the river basins and associated coastal areas

at risk of flooding. For such zones they need to draw up flood risk maps by 2013 and establish flood

risk management plans focused on prevention, protection and preparedness by 2015. The directive

applies to inland waters as well as to all coastal waters across the whole territory of the EU.

The overall objective of the project is identification, sharing good practices on sustainable cross-

border flood-management in European river basins, using the instruments of the FRMD.

The partners of the FLOOD-WISE project are:

o Euregio Meuse-Rhine, lead partner of the project;

o Provincie Limburg, Dutch partner of the Meuse;

o Rijkswaterstaat Limburg, Dutch partner of the Meuse;

o Région Wallonne, Walloon partner of the Meuse;

o Waterschap Roer en Overmaas, Dutch partner of the Rur;

o Wasserverband Eifel-Rur, German partner of the Rur;

o Saxon State Agency for Environment, Agriculture and Geology, Saxon partner of the Elbe;

o Landesumweltamt Brandenburg, Brandenburg partner of the Elbe;

o Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning Slovenia, Slovene partner of the Sava;

o Croatian Waters, Croatian partner of the Sava;

o National University Ukraine, Ukrainian partner of the Bug;

o District Office of Wlodawa, Polish partner of the Bug;

o Central Research Institute for Complex Use of Water Resources, Belarus, Belorussian

partner of the Bug;

o Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water Directorate, Hungarian partner of the Somes;

o The Somes –Tisa River Basin Water Administrations, Romanian partner of the Somes .

1.1 Aim of the report The aim of this report is to provide an assessment of existing cross border cooperation issues and

practices on flood risk management in the above-mentioned river basins. Furthermore, it will

provide a benchmark with regard to cooperation of flood risk management in the six river basins.

Finally, general information about each river basin will be presented.

The following questions are the basis for this report and have the main focus:

o Has the FRMD been converted into national legislation in all partner countries?

o Are there practical and legal obstructions present in cross-border flood risk management?

o Are there possible conflicts between flood measures and economic and/or ecologic

functions?

o Is ecologic functioning of the river basin integrated in flood risk management?

o Is there synergy in flood risk management measures across borders (solidarity principle)?

o Are there flood risk maps present and to what extent?

o Are public and stakeholders involved in the process of development of the flood risk

management plans and in what way?

3

1.2 Structure The following chapter will give an overview of the justification of the research methods, followed by

a chapter which contains general research results. The subsequent chapter will give a description of

the six river basins. Each river basin will have its own subchapter. These subchapters can be divided

in general information about the specific river and the cooperation within the river basin. At the end

of each subchapter a summary will be provided.

4

2. Justification of Research Methods

2.1 Research methods The overall report is based on a combination of desk-research and field-research. The content of the

general river basin information at the beginning of each river basin chapter is based on desk

research. For this part, every partner has approved and wherever necessary adapted part of a

previous report, produced in 2008 by another group of students. The content of the information

about cross-border cooperation is based on field- research.

The field-research consisted of questionnaires, which were filled out by all of the partners in order to

obtain information about the present cross-border cooperation, policy and legal aspects in the river

basins (see Appendix 2 for the questionnaire).

2.2 Construction of questions The questions for the survey were based on the research questions which can be found in paragraph

1.3. They were formulated by the group members of the Europe Calling project and divided into four

categories: general river basin characteristics, communicative aspects, legal aspects and policy

aspects. After being approved by the assignment provider, the questionnaires were sent to the

fourteen FLOOD-WISE partners.

2.3 Characteristics of population The following contact persons of the fourteen partners of the FLOOD-WISE project filled out the

questionnaires:

Contact person Partner organization Fred Van den Brink Provincie Limburg Aleksandra Jaskula Rijkswaterstaat Limburg Didier de Thysebaert Région Wallonne Frank Heijens Waterschap Roer en Overmaas Gerd Demny Wasserverband Eifel-Rur Matthias Grafe Saxon State Agency for Environment, Agriculture and Geology Kurt Augustin Landesumweltamt Brandenburg Vésna Metelko Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning Slovenia Danko Biondic Croatian Waters Grigorij Sapsay National University Ukraine Janosz Adam Kloc District Office of Wlodawa Vladimir Korneev Central Research Institute for Complex Use of Water Resources, Belarus Tamás Fülöp The Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water Directorate Bogdan Neciu The Somes –Tisa River Basin Water Administrations

5

3. General Research Results In this chapter a general overview is provided of the findings regarding all six river basins with

respect to river basin characteristics, cross-border cooperation between FLOOD-WISE partners - and

legal and policy aspects.

3.1 General river basin information

Figure 3.1 River length

The above graph shows the length of the six rivers included in the survey. The Elbe is by far the

longest river with a length of 1,094 km. The Rur is the shortest one with a length of 165km.

Figure 3.2 Average discharge levels

The ‘average discharge level’ in m3 per second, represents the average volume of water flow in m3

per second within a certain river. These levels vary greatly between the different rivers. The Sava has

the highest discharge level (1,722 m3/s), the Rur has the smallest discharge level of 22.7 m3 /s.

6

Figure 3.3 Surface catchment area (km2)

A catchment area is an extent of land where water from rain and melting snow or ice drains downhill

into a body of water, such as a river, lake, reservoir, estuary, wetland, sea or ocean. The surface of

the catchment area of the Elbe is the biggest of the six rivers. It occupies 148,268 km2 of land. The

surface of the Rur only occupies 2,338 km2.

Figure 3.4 Number of inhabitants/km2 in the catchment area

Although the catchment area of the Rur covers the smallest surface, it has the highest population

density, namely a little over 500 inhabitants/km2. The figure clearly shows the higher population

density within the river basins of Western Europe, compared to these of Eastern Europe.

7

Figure 3.5 Number of countries in the catchment area

Although the river Rur is not very long, its catchment area covers three different countries, namely

Germany, The Netherlands and Belgium. The Sava’s catchment area covers six different countries,

which is not surprising regarding its length. The same goes for the Meuse, which contains five

different countries.

Basin’s population density in relation to size

Si

ze

Large Sava Elbe

Medium Bug Meuse

Small Somes Rur

Low High

Population Density

Figure 3.6 Comparing river basins

The above table provides a sub-division of the rivers in terms of their size related to their population

density. Again special attention can be paid to the river Rur which in terms of length, catchment area

surface and average discharge level is the smallest of the six, however, in terms of population

density per km2 the largest.

8

3.2 Frequency of cross-border contact

3.2.1 Frequency of cross- border meetings

Figure 3.7 Cross-border meetings

The above graph shows that 21.4% of the FLOOD-WISE partners meet monthly with their partners

across the border. The other partners (78.6%) meet less than once a month. In the latter case they

only come together:

o every three months;

o during flood meetings;

o ad hoc.

3.2.2 Frequency of cross- border telephone contact

Figure 3.8 Cross-border telephone contacts

Four of the partners indicate that they have either daily or weekly phone-contact with their

partner(s) in flood-managements across the border. 21.4% of the partners state that they meet only

when necessary, for example in case of flood. Most of the partners ticked the box ‘other’ and

verified that they had regular or occasional phone-contact across the border.

9

3.3 Communicative aspects

3.3.1 Language as a barrier

Figure 3.9 Language as a barrier

Figure 3.10 Different languages

In figure 3.9 it can be concluded that exactly half of the FLOOD-WISE partners, seven out of

fourteen, recognize language as a barrier for good communication. The other half does not. In figure

3.10 the different languages used for communication between partners are represented. In total

there are fourteen different languages.

B3-Language(s)used

11,1%

16,7%

8,3%

13,9%2,8%

8,3%

5,6%

5,6%

5,6%

5,6%

8,3%

8,3%DutchEnglishFrenchGermanCzechPolishRomanianHungarianCroatianSlovenianSerbianRussianOtherUkranian

10

3.3.2 Other barriers

Figure 3.11 Other barriers

According to the vast majority of the FLOOD-WISE partners there are a lot of other matters that

form a barrier for good communication and cooperation. The fact that some countries have different

administration systems than others forms the biggest barrier for communication between partners,

followed by their different policies and different interests. Examples of these different interests are:

o upstream and downstream interests;

o EU- and non- EU interests.

Examples of cultural differences are:

o the importance of informal circuits and mutual trust;

o power distance.

Partners who ticked the box ‘others’ mentioned the following:

o differences in hierarchy within organizations;

o lack of coordinated action between organizations across borders;

o differences in control and management of dams.

11

3.3.3 Involvement of inhabitants

Figure 3.12 Figure 3.13

The overall majority of the FLOOD-WISE partners take measures to raise the awareness among the

inhabitants of the river basin regarding flood risk. In order to do this, they use a great variety of

instruments, of which websites, informative meetings and flyers are most frequently used. Some

partners, who ticked the box ‘other’ offer things such as workshops and one of them offers an

educational hike (nature trail) as well.

Yes

85,7%

No

14,3%

B7-measures to raise the awareness

12

3.4 Legal aspects

3.4.1 FRMD and international treaties

Figure 3.14 FRMD Figure 3.15 International treaties

The majority of the FLOOD-WISE partners (71.4%) have already implemented the Flood Risk

Management Directive (FRMD) into national legislation as can be seen in figure 3.14. These include

all the partners that are EU-member and Ukraine.

Figure 3.15 shows the amount of FLOOD-WISE partners whose countries have international treaties

on cooperation in trans-boundary waters. The overall majority of the partner-countries, 78.6%, do

have such treaties.

3.4.2 International river commissions

Figure 3.16 International River Commissions

When it comes to international river commissions, exactly half of the FLOOD-WISE partners

cooperate with such a commission. The other seven partners do not have contact with an

international river commission.

Blank

7,1%

Yes

71,4%

No

21,4%

C1- FRMD as National Legislation

Blank

7,1%

Yes

78,6%

No

14,3%

C5- International treaties on cooperatio

13

3.5 Policy aspects

3.5.1 Flood-risk maps

Flood –risk maps are used to indicate areas of land or property that have

historically been flooded or that are considered to be at risk of flooding.

Nine out of fourteen FLOOD-WISE partners have already developed flood-

risk maps based on the available data about areas where flood-risk occurs,

the other five not yet.

Figure 3.17 Flood-risk maps

3.5.2 Flood-risk management strategies

Figure 3.18 Flood-risk management strategies

In order to decrease the risk of flooding various measures are implemented within the different

countries of the FLOOD-WISE partners. The most frequently used include strengthening and

heightening of dikes, followed by improving evacuation systems and creating extra space for the

river. Partners who ticked the box ‘other’ mentioned strategies such as:

o improving forecast systems;

o building of (multipurpose) reservoirs;

o relief channels;

o flood-retention basins.

14

3.5.3 Use of floodplains

Figure 3.19 Use of floodplains

Floodplains are mainly used for nature, followed closely by cattle farming, arable farming and tourist

activities. In some regions floodplains are also used for industry, but this is by far the smallest

percentage.

3.5.4 Experienced conflicts when implementing flood-risk management strategies

Figure 3.20 Conflicts – ecologic function Figure 3.21 Conflicts – economic function

All of the FLOOD-WISE partners experience conflicts when implementing flood measures, both

regarding economic functions as well as ecologic functions of the river basin.

Yes

64,3%

No

35,7%

Yes

85,7%

No

14,3%

15

Examples of the conflicts between the implementation of flood measures and the ecologic functions

of the river basin mentioned by the partners include the following:

o the construction of dikes can affect the functioning of natural systems (preventing flood

plains from flooding, worsening the accessibility of the floodplains from the river);

o broadening of the summer-bed can lower the groundwater level (desiccation even on a big

distance).

As an example of the conflicts between flood measures and the economic function of the river

basin, the partners mentioned:

o the fact that it is forbidden to build inside of floodplains;

o conflicts between dike relocating and land used for cattle farming;

o the costs of rules and regulations like the Directive 2000/60/EC, which provides for a clear

and transparent process for addressing the uses and impacts 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).

3.6 General Conclusions

General river basin information

The six river basins that are included in this survey have very different characteristics. They vary

significantly regarding their lengths, discharge levels and catchment areas. Also the number of

inhabitants per km2 living in the catchment area of each river basin, and the number of countries in

the catchment area differs. The largest river of the river basins that are in the FLOOD-WISE project is

the Elbe, the smallest one is the Rur.

Naturally they have different geographical locations, which brings along consequences for all aspects

of the river. Not only does its location influence the land characteristics of each river basin (e.g.

mountains versus pastures) and the type of watercourse (rain type of watercourse versus snow type

of watercourse), also the question if a river is situated within EU-countries or non-EU countries

brings along major consequences, above all for legislation concerning flood-risk management.

Communicative aspects

The nature of the cross-border contact of the different partners varies. Some partners are very

active in cross-border cooperation, others do not cooperate (in a direct way) with river basin

partners across the border (yet).

Different barriers are encountered when cooperating with partners in another country. One of them

is language, which is considered an obstacle for good cross-border communication and cooperation

by 50% of the FLOOD-WISE partners. This is not surprising, regarding the fourteen different

languages that are used for cross-border communication within the six river basins.

Other barriers for good cross-border communication and cooperation are for example the fact that

different countries have different administration systems where powers and mandates are divided

in divergent ways and the fact that they pursue different policies regarding flood-management.

Different interests also play a major role. Within river basins the differences between the interests

16

of countries that are closer to the spring of the river (upstream countries) and countries that are

closer to the mouth of the river (downstream countries) vary. If an upstream country pursues a

flood-management policy aiming at getting rid of a surplus of water, downstream countries will

encounter problems. Also the interests of EU-countries in comparison to non-EU countries vary. EU-

countries are obliged to take into account EU-legislation regarding flood-risk (the FRMD), whereas

non-EU countries do not have to take this legislation into account.

Legal aspects

The Flood Risk Management Directive (FRMD, also called Directive 2007/60/EC) has already been

translated into national legislation within most of the countries in the FLOOD-WISE project. All these

countries but one are EU-member states, as the EU obliged its member states to translate the FRMD

(framework legislation) into national legislation. Although Ukraine is not an EU-member state, it

nevertheless has converted the FRMD into Ukrainian legislation.

Policy aspects

Different river basin characteristics call for divergent policies regarding flood-management and some

countries pursue different policies rather than others. The measures taken in order to reduce the

risk of flooding vary significantly per river basin. However, heightening dikes and improving

evacuation systems are the most used strategies, apparent in almost all of the river basins. When

implementing these measures, all of the partners experience either ecologic conflicts, economic

conflicts or both.

In order to reduce the risk of flood it also is important to develop flood risk maps. Although the

FRMD obliges EU-member states to draw up such maps, not all of the EU-member states have done

this yet.

3.7 Recommendations o Be in touch with partners on the other side of the border on a regular basis, in order to stay

well-informed about the situation and recent developments of cross-border flood-

management. In this way it will be easier to adapt policies to each other, be familiar with

differences between administration systems of partner-countries and to reckon with

different interest across the border;

o Improve language skills. Language is a barrier that complicates good communication and

cooperation with partners across the border;

o For good cross-border cooperation it is important that legislation corresponds within the

partner countries. Therefore it would be recommendable for all countries of the FLOOD-

WISE partners to convert the FRMD into national legislation.

17

4. Results per River Basin

This chapter will give an overview of the six river basins of the FLOOD-WISE project. Each river basin

will be ordered into its own subchapter. In these subchapters general information and information

about cross border cooperation of the specific rivers will be given. The river basins are ranged from

large to small: Elbe, Sava, Meuse, Bug, Somes and Rur.

4.1 The Elbe river basin

4.1.1 General river basin information

Figure 4.1 Elbe River Basin

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Elbe_Einzugsgebiet.png

18

The Elbe is one of the major rivers of central Europe, originating in the Giant Mountains (Krkonoše)

in the Czech Republic, finishing its way into the sea at Cuxhaven-Kugelbake in Germany. Its total

length is around 1,094 km and the Elbe river basin occupies a surface of 148,268 km2 From the

geomorphologic angle, the Elbe watercourse is divided into three stretches:

o Upper Elbe: from the springs downstream to its entrance into the North German Lowland at

the Hirschstein Castle, length: 463 km;

o Middle Elbe: from the Hirschstein Castle downstream to the Geesthacht weir, length: 489 km;

o Lower Elbe: from the Geesthacht weir downstream to its mouth into the North Sea at

Cuxhaven-Kugelbake, length: 142 km.

The Elbe basin is situated in a mild climatic zone; it is located in the transitional area between sea

and continental climate. The average annual air temperature varies from 8 °C to 9 °C in the lowland

and from 1 °C to 3 °C in the mountains.

In March the highest amount of water runs through the Elbe, primarily coming from melting snow. In

August the lowest amount of water runs through the river. Although in summer the water level of

the Elbe decreases, forceful rain-fall can cause a sudden rise of the water-level. The average annual

flow is 311 m³/s on the Czech-German border and 728 m³/s on the lower reach.

The surface of the Elbe river basin has

the following characteristics:

o agricultural land (50%);

o woods (26,7%);

o grass growths;

o other purposes, such as traffic or

water surfaces (15,3%).

The purposes of the Elbe are:

o waterway transport;

o water inlet;

o hydroelectric power plants;

o fishing, sport and recreation.

The water level of the river Elbe is mainly influenced by the amount of snow melting in spring in

combination with intensive rain. The Elbe therefore belongs to the rain-snow type of watercourse,

where winter and spring floods are typical. During observation of floods in the period 1890-2002 it

was established that 70%-75% of the floods occurred in the winter hydrological half-year on the

higher Elbe. In summer all major floods of the Elbe occur as a consequence of massive regional

rainfall over several days. However, these rainfalls which lead to extreme floods on Elbe tributaries

usually cause smaller floods on the river Elbe itself. Extensive floods on the Elbe mostly begin within

the area of the Czech Republic. The occurrence of floods on the Higher Elbe is influenced by the

Vltava tributary.

Figure 4.2 River Elbe, Germany - Mathias Scholz/UFZ

19

The main problem is the short-time forecast for smaller catchments (< 500 km²) which are

endangered by flash floods. Another problem is the length of the flood wave in the Elbe, especially in

winter and with the groundwater. Flooded areas are densely populated, therefore, high damage

potential exists. To conclude, there are static floods with large inundation on the river Elbe at least

twice a year (in winter or summer).

In the past, there were major floods in the years 1784, 1799, 1815, 1850, 1855, 1862, 1865, 1876,

1881, 1888, 1890, 1926, 1954, 1957, 1958, 1981, 1987 and 1997. Two extensive floods in the 21st

century happened in August 2002 and in January 2003. The last flood in the Elbe basin occurred in

2006.

4.1.2 Cross-border cooperation

National, cross-border and international cooperation partners

Brandenburg State Office for Environment (Landesumweltamt Brandenburg) cooperates with the

following organizations regarding flood-management in the Elbe river basin:

Brandenburg State Office for Environment

Within Germany

Saxon State Agency for Environment, Agriculture and Geology

The Administrative unit for flood protection and water management, flood forecasting centre of the state of Saxony-Anhalt

Lower Saxony Water Management, Coastal Defence and Nature Conservation Agency

State office for Environment and Nature of the Federal State of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Authorities for land use, spatial planning and regional development

Local authorities and municipalities

Nongovernmental organizations and associations

Across the border none

International River Commissions

International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe River

The Saxon State Agency for Environment, Agriculture and Geology (Sächsisches Staatsministerium

für Umwelt und Landwirtschaft) cooperates with the following organizations regarding flood-

management in the Elbe river basin:

The Saxon State Agency for Environment, Agriculture and Geology Within Germany

Wasser- und Schifffahrtsamt (Dresden, Magdeburg)

Wasser- und Schifffahrtsdirektion Magdeburg

Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde

Brandenburg State Office for Environment

Thüringer Landesanstalt für Umwelt und Geologie

Landesbetrieb für Hochwasserschutz und Wasserwirtschaft Sachsen-Anhalt

Across the border

Czech Hydrometeorological Institute Prague

Povodi Tschechien International River Commissions

International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe River

20


The partners across the border of the Elbe river basin meet once every three to four months, only at

meetings or conferences of cross border projects. The Saxon State Agency for Agriculture,

Environment and Geology has daily telephone contact with its partner(s) across the border and

cooperates in a direct way with its partners in the Czech Republic. The Brandenburg State Office for

Environment only has cross-border telephone contact on an intermittent basis. It is not active in

direct cross-border cooperation outside of Germany. Prof. Socher from the Saxon Ministry for the

Environment and Agriculture is currently the head of the German delegation of the International

Commission for the Protection of the Elbe River (ICPE), also representing the Brandenburg State

Office for Environment.

The Brandenburg State Office for Environment only uses English for cross-border communication, in

Saxony English, German and Czech are used as communication language for cross-border

communication. Both partners consider language a communication barrier.

Apart from different languages only different policies are experienced as a barrier for good

communication by the Brandenburg State Office for Environment. The Saxon State Agency for

Environment, Agriculture and Geology considers different interests (Czech dam management and

control), different administration systems and technical aspects of flood-risk management as

barriers for good communication and cooperation.

Various measures are taken to raise the awareness among the inhabitants of the river basin

regarding flood-risk. Both federal states are currently spreading flyers and make use of the internet

to get citizens aware of the risks of flooding.

o Brandenburg: http://www.luis.brandenburg.de/w/;

o Saxony: http://www.umwelt.sachsen.de/umwelt/wasser/en/index.html.

The State of Saxony also offers workshops and there is the possibility of walking the ‘Nature Trail of

Flood Protection in the City of Dresden’. Nature trails are a medium of environmental education by

sensitizing and qualifying the viewer for ecology-minded action. Not only previous events should be

kept in mind. The visitors of the trail should also be animated to deal consciously with the exposure

to hazards and in consequence be encouraged to a continued engagement for prevention.

Brandenburg offers many brochures that can be ordered at the following website:

http://www.mugv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/5lbm1.c.111478.de#wasser.

Furthermore, it is possible to visit informative meetings about flood maps.

http://www.luis.brandenburg.de/w/

http://www.umwelt.sachsen.de/umwelt/wasser/en/index.html

http://www.mugv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/5lbm1.c.111478.de#wasser

21

Both partners include stakeholders in

flood-risk management. The Saxon State

Agency for Environment, Agriculture and

Geology does this through

communication and exchange of data,

setting off alarms levels, obligating

citizens to the competent authority in

case of danger and identification,

designation of flood generation areas

and questionnaires. The Brandenburg

State Office for Environment conducts

consultations and workshops with the

stakeholders to agree the methods for

implementation of the EU-directive on

the assessment and management of

flood-risk in the Elbe basin. It also organizes the active involvement of all interested parties in

developing appropriate objectives and measures.

Legal aspects

The FRMD (Flood Risk Management Directive) has already been converted into national law, namely

into the Wasserhaushaltsgesetz (WHG) as amended and promulgated on 19 August 2002 (BGBl. I S.

3245), last time amended by Article 1 of the Gesetz zur Neuregelung des Wasserrechts of 31 July

2009.

In the State of Brandeburg it will be converted in the Brandenburg water law: Brandenburgisches

Wassergesetz (BbgWG) as amended and promulgated on 8 December 2004 (GVBl.I/2005, Nr. 05,

S.50) last time amended by Article 1 of the Gesetz zur Änderung wasserrechtlicher Vorschriften of 23

April 2008. The amendment of the law will be inured until the end of 2010.

In both federal states data are available about areas where flood-risk occurs and flood-risk maps

have been developed based on these data. However, in Brandenburg these flood-risk maps have not

been developed for all areas yet.

In both federal states there are international treaties on cooperation in trans-boundary waters.

Unlike the Saxon State Agency for Environment, Agriculture and Geology, the Brandenburg State

Office for Environment experiences legal obstructions in cross-border flood risk management.

Policy aspects

In Brandenburg and in Saxony strategies when it comes to flood-risk management are different.

In Brandenburg the focus lies on strengthening & heightening dikes, creating extra space for the

river and improving evacuation systems. Also forecast systems are being improved with the

objective to ensure an intended degree of protection, expressed by a statistical return period, e.g. a

100 year flood event. For all flood events with a statistical return period higher then 100, a catalogue

of risk management measures will be created. Over the last years strategies used regarding flood-

management strategies in Brandenburg have not changed.

Figure 4.3 River Elbe, Sandbucht - Andre Kuenzelmann/UFZ

22

In Saxony strengthening & heightening dikes, creating extra space for the river and improving

evacuation systems are also part of the strategy. However, in Saxony it is intended to build

elsewhere, i.e. not inside the active floodplain. Furthermore, compartmentalisation is part of the

strategy, which ensures that the water does not spread as far or rapidly. Finally flood control

reservoirs are being built, which maintain water at a low level so that when a storm comes, water

may be detained and stored to decrease or eliminate the threat of flooding downstream from the

reservoir. Strengthening & heightening dikes, creating extra space for the river and

compartmentalisation are measures that have only been implemented over the last years within

Saxony.

Floodplains are also used in slightly different ways in both federal states. In Saxony they are used for

cattle and arable farming, fishing, tourism and nature. In Brandenburg floodplains are used for the

same purposes, however, they are additionally used as housing sites and for industry.

Both federal states have experienced conflicts between the implementation of flood measures and

ecologic functions within their river basins. The Brandenburg State Office for Environment indicates

that these problems lie in the field of dike restoration which may disturb biotopes for protected

species. The Saxon State Agency for Agriculture, Environment and Geology experiences exactly these

same problems.

Both federal states also experience conflicts between the implementation of flood measures and

economic functions within their river basins. In Brandenburg these conflicts arise between dike

relocation and land used for cattle farming. In Saxony they arise between reclamation of flood plains

and arable farming within river basins.

4.1.3 Summary

The Elbe is the largest river of the FLOOD-WISE project. Waterway transport is a very important

purpose of the river. The water level of the Elbe river is mainly influenced by the amount of snow

melting in spring in combination with intensive rain. Static floods with large inundation on the Elbe

river occur at least twice a year, in winter or summer.

The Saxon State Agency for Environment, Agriculture and Geology and the Brandenburg State Office

for Environment are both active in cross-border cooperation, however, it seems like the Saxon State

Agency for Environment, Agriculture and Geology has more contact with partners across the border

than its counterpart in Brandenburg and has a slightly more international approach towards flood

risk management.

However, both partners take measures in order to raise flood-risk awareness among citizens, varying

from flyers and brochures to workshops about flood-maps in Brandenburg and a Nature Trail of

Flood Protection in the City of Dresden’ in Saxony.

In Germany as whole the FRMD have been converted to the Wasserhaushaltsgesetz (WHG).

Policies aiming at decreasing risk of flood differ within the two federal states. The State of

Brandenburg has been using the same measures over the last years, whereas it seems that the State

of Saxony has been trying new methods recently.

23

4.2 The Sava river basin


The river Sava is an international river with a basin area shared by five countries: Bosnia-

Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. A minor share of the basin area extends into

Albania. The river stretches slightly less than 1,000 km with a catchment area covering about 95,000

km2 representing 50% to 70% of the surface area of each of the five countries. The Sava river is the

second largest tributary to the Danube river and is of biological significance because of its

outstanding biological and landscape diversity. It is host to the largest complex of alluvial floodplain

wetlands in the Danube basin and the largest lowland forests. The Sava is a unique example of a

river where the floodplains are still intact, supporting both flood alleviation and biodiversity.

The climate varies from alpine, panoptic to continental. The average precipitation is 1,593mm per

year in Slovenia and 1,000 mm per year west in Croatia and 600mm per year east in Croatia. The

mean annual discharge at the point joining the Danube in Belgrade is 1,700 m3/s.

Figure 4.4 Sava river basin

24

Approximately 2.2 million people live near the Croatian part of the Sava river basin. The Slovene part

of the Sava river basin has approximately 1.3 million inhabitants.

The river follows the following land characteristics:

o mountains 5 %;

o forests 25 % ;

o wetlands about 60,000ha;

o pastures 25 % ;

o agriculture 40 %;

o few irrigated lands.

The Sava has the following functions:

o source for drinking water;

o navigation routes;

o boating;

o fish angling activities;

o navigable waterways;

o recreational sports;

o mills & saw mills;

o mineral & thermal water abstractions;

o hydropower use.

In Slovenia the last flood occurred in 2009, while in Croatia, the last flood occurred during the

months of February and March in 2010.



The Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning Slovenia cooperates with the following

organizations regarding flood-management in the Sava river basin:

The Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning Slovenia Within Slovenia

Ministries

Local Communities

Organizations for spatial planning

Designing organizations

NGO and other public authorities on the

national and local level

Environmental inspection organizations

Service for Protection and Rescue

Institute for Waters of the Republic of Slovenia

Across the border

Croatian Waters company Hrvatske Vode International River Commissions

Permanent Croatian - Slovenian Commission for Water Management

Figure 4.5 River Sava, Hrastník - Szeder László

25

The Hrvatske Vode in Croatia cooperates with the following organizations regarding flood-

management in the Sava river basin:

The Hrvatske Vode in Croatia Within Croatia

The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Physical Planning

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

The Ministry of Health and Social Welfare

The Ministry for Public Works Reconstruction and Construction

The Ministry of Economy

The Ministry of Tourism

The Ministry of Culture

The Ministry of Finance

Ministry of Science, Education and Sport

The Ministry of Regional Development, Forestry and Water Management

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration

Ministry of the Interior

Across the border

The Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning Slovenia International River Commissions

Permanent Croatian - Slovenian Commission for Water Management

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) The International Sava River Basin Commission is shared with Slovenia, but there is also the

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), an international

organization that consists of thirteen cooperating states (Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia,

Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova and

Ukraine) and the European Union.

Organizations such as the National Protection and Rescue Directorate, the Meteorological and

Hydrological Service, Hrvatska elektroprivreda (Croatian Power Company), Hrvatske šume (state-

owned company in charge of forest management) take part in the management process within the

country. Parts of the area are protected in accordance with laws and conventions on nature

protection (Nature Park and a Ramsar site of Lonjsko polje, a Ramsar site of Crna Mlaka,

ornithological reserves of Rakita and Krapje Đol, etc.).

Communicative Aspects

The Slovene partner meets at least three times a year on formal events and at events when

interventions are needed, for example in case of an accident. The same goes for contact through e-

mail and telephone.

Through the intermediary of Croatian - Slovenian Commission for Water Management, the Slovenian

and Croatian partners meet annually. The commission works in four subcommittees which meet

more often if necessary:

o the Subcommittee for the Drava and Mura River Basins;

o the Subcommittee for the Sutla, Sava and Kupa River Basins;

o the Subcommittee for the Littoral and Istrian River Basins and Coastal Waters

o the Subcommittee for Water Quality

Both partners use both Croatian language and Slovenian language to communicate with cross-

border authorities of the Sava Basin. None of them consider language to be a communication

barrier.

26

The Hrvatske Vode in Croatia does not experience any barriers for good communication between its

partners, however the Slovene partner experiences a barrier because there are different priorities

between organizations.

In Slovenia the stakeholders involved are the local authorities, the institution for Waters of the

Republic of Slovenia, ministries, hydropower organizations, inhabitants and industries on areas in

danger of floods.

In Croatia the main stakeholders are the ministries, the local governments, the National Protection

and Rescue Directorate, the Meteorological and Hydrological Service, Hrvatska elektroprivreda (a

Croatian power company) and Hrvatske šume (state-owned company in charge of forest

management).

Both partners raise awareness among the inhabitants of the river basin regarding flood-risk. In

Slovenia informative meeting and website are set up. For more efficient operative flood defence,

Hrvatske Vode has established a system of on-line monitoring stations. Today, the online data

system consists of hundred three automatic stations in Croatia. Sixty-two of them are in the Sava

river basin. The real-time monitored water levels can be found on the website http://www.voda.hr

or at the same address when using “warp” mobile phones as well as on the teletext of Croatian

Television (HTV).

Data on the water level, obtained from field stations, are used for the preparation of forecasts of

arrival, propagation, and transformation of a flood wave.

Systematic forecasting of water levels and flows in the Sava river basin is conducted by Hrvatske

Vode at the majority of water gauge profiles in the Sava and Kupa Rivers, which are relevant for the

implementation of flood defence measures under the National Flood Defence Plan.

For the part of the Sava river downstream Jasenovac it is still not possible to make reliable

hydrological forecasts due to the lack of information from the part of Sava River basin in Bosnia and

Herzegovina.

For internal use of Hrvatske Vode comprehensive hydrologic data collection and dissemination

system is being built taking in consideration not only flood monitoring, forecasting and warning but

other requirements of water management as well.

However, the stakeholders are involved through spatial planning procedure, through flood

protection planning and building in Slovenia. In Croatia, it is effective through the annual flood

management program.

Legal aspects

The FRMD is already converted into national law in Slovenia. Croatia has expressed its interest in

being membership of European Union and still is an EU candidate. Croatia adapted its legalization to

the laws of the European Council, but the EU has asked for additional political and economic

reforms. Thus, flood protection in the Republic of Croatia has been regulated under the Water Act

(Official Gazette, No. 153/09 and the Water Management Financing Act which has the following

objectives (among others) :

o designs the institutional framework for water management;

http://www.voda.hr/

27

o introduces the managing of water from a river basin approach;

o divides Croatia into four water basins (including both surface and ground waters;

o assigns the city of Zagreb as an independent water unit;

o assigns responsibilities to various levels of government, local authorities and legal subjects;

o ensures protection measures for the prevention of flood damages;

o defines that drinking is the main priority among all water uses;

o ensures the protection of aquifers.

In both countries there are data available about areas where flood risk occurs. However, there are

not any flood-risk maps been developed based on these data. Data on water level obtained from

field stations are used for the preparation of forecasts of arrival, propagation, and transformation of

a flood wave.

International treaties manage the cooperation between both countries and no legal obstruction has

been experienced concerning flood risk management.

Policy aspects

Strengthening & heightening dikes, creating extra space for the rivers, improving evacuation

systems, building outside the floodplains, compartmentalisation which ensures that the water does

not spread as far or rapidly are the strategies regarding flood risk management that are currently

implemented in Slovenia. In the past strengthening and heightening of dikes was used in Slovenia.

In Croatia the strategies regarding flood risk management that are currently implemented are

protection of dikes, relief channels, distribution facilities, lowland retention lakes or expansion areas,

multipurpose reservoirs and mountain retention storages. The same measures were implemented in

the past.

Both in Slovenia and Croatia, the floodplains of the

Sava river basin are used for cattle farming, arable

farming, tourism and for nature. Slovenia has

experienced some conflicts between the

implementation of flood measures and ecologic

function because it is recognized that protection

measures are not always compatible with the

nature protection measures. Slovenia also

experienced conflicts between the

implementation of flood measures and economic

functions because it is difficult to stop the

urbanization and building of protected areas.

Croatia does not experience any of these

problems.

The Slovene partner integrates ecosystem services of the river basin in flood risk management

within their organization through protection of natural flood plains from urbanization and grassing

river banks to avoid erosion. The Hrvatske Vode in Croatia does not integrate ecosystem services of

the river basin in flood risk management within their organization.

Figure 4.6 Sava-Drina Confluence, Bosnia and Herzegovina -

Julian Nitzsche

28

4.2.3 Summary

The Sava river is the second largest tributary to the Danube River and is of biological significance

because of its outstanding biological and landscape diversity. It is the second largest river basin

involved in the FLOOD-WISE project.

There is no regular meeting between authorities, to discuss flood-management. They meet three

times a year on formal events and at the events when the interventions are needed. Informal

communication (through telephone, internet) also happens occasionally, in case of need, in case of

an accident or before an important meeting.

A lot of effort has been put in improving flood policies, cross-border cooperation and

communication in the Sava river basin. Especially, the International Sava River Basin Commission

was a good initiative. The partners meet annually and work in four subcommittees which meet more

often if this is necessary. The long-term benefit resulting from the work of the Sava Commission and

implementation of the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin will be the establishment of

the international legal regime by enforcement of instruments of international water law,

international navigation law, international law on environmental protection, as well as the

regulations of the EU being applied.

Still there has to be paid much more attention to recognizing the importance of working with the

people on the other side of the river (solidarity principle) and the idea of exchanging information

and experiences with other river basins throughout Europe. Thus, in the future, a flood defence plan

will be drawn up for an integrated water system. This operative flood defence on boundary

watercourses is carried out together with competent services from the neighbouring countries.

International treaties manage the cooperation between cross border countries.

The languages used between cross-border authorities are the own languages of the countries:

Croatian and Slovenian. In spite of the use of two distinct languages, the language is not perceived

as a barrier. The barriers for good communication is not about language, it is about different the

priorities of each country.

To raise awareness regarding flood risk among citizens, websites, informative meetings and annual

flood management programs are being used by both partners.

A big difference in the legal aspect can be found in that Croatia has not yet converted the FRMD in

national law, where already Slovenia did. In both countries, there are data available about flood risk,

but flood risk maps have not been developed yet in both countries. Strengthening & heightening

dikes, creating extra space for the rivers, improving evacuation systems, building outside the river

basin, compartmentalization which ensures that the water does not spread as far or rapidly are the

strategies regarding flood risk management that are currently implemented in Slovenia. Flood

protection dikes, relief channels, distribution facilities, lowland retention lakes or expansion areas,

multipurpose reservoirs, mountain retention storages are the strategies used in Croatia currently as

well as in the past.

29

In general, the flood plains are used for cattle farming, tourism and nature in Slovenia and Croatia.

Slovenia also uses floodplains for arable farming.

Slovenia has experienced some conflicts between the implementation of flood measures and

ecologic and economic functions. Croatia does not experience any of these problems.

The Slovenian partner integrates ecosystem services of the river basin in flood risk management

within their organization contrary to the Croatian partner, who does not integrate an ecosystem

service.

30

4.3 The Meuse river basin


The river Meuse flows from its source in France via Belgium to its river mouth in the west of the

Netherlands. The Meuse river basin covers an area of approximately 34,500 km², including parts of

Figure 4.7 Meuse River Basin

31

France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands with a population density of 250 per

km² and about 9 million in total.

The French catchment area covers 10,750 km². It is elongated and narrow, with a low fall. However,

the porous soil absorbs much of the precipitation.

In Belgium the Meuse flows from Chooz to the

Dutch border village Eijsden. It encompasses

most of the Belgian Ardennes and the Sambre

region. It is a wide area of about 10,000 km².

Because a large number of tributaries and

streams fall steeply and because the soil is

rocky, the rain is quick to reach the Meuse.

Precipitation in the Ardennes region reaches

the Dutch border within eight hours.

The Dutch part of the Meuse flows from

Eijsden to the Hollands Diep. The Meuse

tributaries and the situation of the national

border mean that the Dutch section also

encompasses a small area of Flanders. The

surface area is approximately 12,250 km². It is

relatively wide and largely flat.

The Meuse has the following land characteristics:

o 60% agricultural purposes;

o 30% is forested.

The Meuse has the following functions:

o conduit for rainwater;

o transport route for inland shipping ;

o source for drinking water;

o recreational activity;

o used for industrial processes and for cooling;

o hydropower;

o agriculture;

o source of sand and gravel;

o recreation;

Figure 4.8 Average precipitations in mm p/y – www.risicokaart.nl

32

o nature (Natura 20001, ecological function and corridor).

The Meuse is a characteristic rain-fed river, which means that its discharge levels depend largely on

the amount of precipitation. Floods occur mostly when the discharge of the river is high. December,

January and February are the most critical with possible discharge levels four times as high as the

summer average.

The last flood managed by the Province of Limburg as well as by the Région Wallone occured in

2003. The last major floods with serious consequences occurred in 1926, 1993 and 1995 when large

parts of land and urban areas were inundated in the Netherlands. These three floods represent the

three highest discharge levels in the Netherlands. Although there were no – or only little – human

casualties, economic costs for the Netherlands and the southern part of the Netherlands in

particular were considerable. As the Meuse is a rain-fed river, major floods in the river basin occur

during and after long periods of heavy rainfall, mostly during winter and early spring. In addition the

river has to deal with an extra supply of water from its tributaries when snow in the Ardennes melts.

In the “Mijnverzakkingsgebied”, located in the eastern part of Flanders, the water level can reach

seven meters as a result of former mining activities. In the Netherlands two different situations are

distinguished: with and without dikes. Up to Mook, there are no real dikes along the river. During

floods the water extends in the valley (although nowadays there are embankments to protect urban

areas). Downstream of Mook (up to the sea), the land is protected by dikes. A large part of the land

is below sea level. If a flood occurs, and the dike breaks, a large part of the land will be inundated.



The Province of Limburg is a regional water authority, responsible for the regional water policy and

management in the south of the Netherlands. It is also responsible for spatial planning, the

environment, welfare, economy and mobility on a regional scale. The Province of Limburg has

experience in the field of sustainable water management, policy making and is involved with the

implementation of EU directives. Furthermore, they cooperate with the Dutch Ministry of

Waterways and Public Works (directorate Limburg), two water boards (Roer & Overmaas and Peel &

Maasvallei) and the so called safety regions within the country.

Across the border it deals with the Shipping Service (“Dienst voor de Scheepvaart”) and the

Administration for Waterways and Seeways (“Administratie Waterwegen en Zeewegen”) on the

Flemish side and the MET-Voie Hydrologique, Région Wallonne (DGNE) on the Walloon side. They

also deal with the Wasserverband Eiffel-Rur and Niersverband, which are both German

Organizations. The Province of Limburg deals with permanent border water committees and two

sub-divisions: the Meuse-Rur and the Meuse-Niers. There is also cooperation via the River Basin

Committee Thornerbeek, Jeker, Voer.

1 Natura 2000 is an ecological network of protected areas, set up to ensure the survival of Europe's most valuable species and

habitats. Natura 2000 is based on the 1979 Birds Directive and the 1992 Habitats Directive. The green infrastructure it provides

safeguards numerous ecosystem services and ensures that Europe's natural systems remain healthy and resilient.

(http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/natura2000gis)

33

The Province of Limburg Within the Netherlands

the Ministry of Waterways and Public Works, directorate Limburg

Water boards: Roer & Overmaas, Peel & Maasvallei

Safety regions (2)

Across the border

Flanders: a. Dienst voor de Scheepvaart b. Administratie Waterwegen en Zeewegen

Wallonia: a. MET-Voie Hydrologique b. Région Wallonne (DGNE)

Germany: a. Wasserverband Eiffel-Rur b. Niersverband International River Commissions

German-Dutch commission : International Meuse Commission

Permanent border water commission + two sub-divisions: a. Meuse-Rur, b. Meuse- Niers

Flemish-Dutch bilateral Meuse commission: River Basin Committee Thornerbeek, Jeker, Voer

The Région Wallonne is a regional public authority. The Directorate General of natural resources &

environment (DGNE) is the managing authority for the implementation of the water framework

directive.

The Région Wallonne Within Belgium/Walloon

Groupe Transversal Inondations (headquarters)

Centre Régional de Crise

Gestionnaires Provinces et Communes

Direction générale des Voies Hydrauliques Across the border

none


CIM (Meuse)

CIE (Escaut)

CIPMS (Moselle-Sarre)

The Dutch Ministry of Waterways and Public Works (Rijkswaterstaat), has experience in interregional

cooperation through participation in several Interreg programmes. It cooperates with the

Waterbouwkundig Laboratorium (Flanders), the Region Wallonne (Walloon) via the public service of

Wallonia (Service public de Wallonie). Furthermore, there is cooperation with the French “Direction

regional de l’environnement, de l’aménagement et du Logement de Lorraine”. Finally,

Rijkswaterstaat Limburg cooperates through an international river commission between the Flemish

and the Dutch: the Flemish-Dutch Bilateral Meuse Commission.

Dutch Ministry of Waterways and Public Works (Rijkswaterstaat) Within the Netherlands

Water boards Roer & Overmaas and Peel & Maasvallei

Province of Limburg

Communities

Organizations managing nature areas

34

Dutch Ministry of Waterways and Public Works (Rijkswaterstaat) Across the border

NV De Scheepvaart (Flanders)

Waterbouwkundig Laboratorium (Flanders)

Service public de Wallonie

Direction régionale de l’environnement, de l’aménagement et du logement de Lorraine

(France)


International Meuse Commission

Flemish-Dutch Bilateral Meuse Commission

The International River Committee reinforces the cooperation across the border. The three

organizations (Province of Limburg, Rijkswaterstaat and Région Wallonne) operate together in the

International Meuse Commission (IMC). Based in Liège, the IMC’s most important tasks are:

coordinating the obligations of the European Water Framework Directive and providing advice and

recommendations for improved flood prevention and risk management. Furthermore they provide

advice and recommendations to parties for preventing and combating water pollution (warning and

alarm system).


The Province of Limburg meets the cross-border authorities to discuss cross-border flood-

management every three months. Rijkswaterstaat meets its partners monthly. The Région Wallonne

and their partners, meet three to four times a year depending on the situation and following the

meeting of international rivers commissions. This also applies to contact through mail or telephone.

The Province of Limburg has informal contact with the cross-border authorities every two months

whereas Rijkswaterstaat has this contact weekly.

Every partner uses Dutch, French, and English to communicate, depending on their cross-border

counterparts. Dutch is used in communication between Flemish organizations and within the

International Meuse Committee (IMC) with a simultaneous translation in English. French is used

within Walloon organizations. The Région Wallonne deals also with several German organizations;

German language is used in their communication. All the organizations have experienced language

as a communication barrier.

Besides language, there are other factors considered a barrier for a good communication. The

Province of Limburg, experiences the different administration systems of the partners as a

problematic aspect. Also, the cultural differences, the existence of informal circuits, the different

interests between upstream and downstream, as well as the different policies and technical aspects

are considered a barrier. The different hierarchical structures of the organizations increase the

difficulties in cooperation.

35

For Rijkswaterstaat in Limburg, the cultural differences, the different interests as well as the

technical aspects are still problematic. In fact, different countries have different priorities; floods

may not have such disastrous consequences everywhere, as they have in the Netherlands. In some

countries, there is not enough staff to take the required actions and measures. In different

countries, civil servants have different powers and mandates. Some countries attach more

importance than others to the continuity and the level of representation and informal consultations

on the basis of mutual trust. In some countries political lines are very important and civil servants

are used to play a ‘diplomatic/political game’. The Région Wallonne recognizes that the different

administrations systems and the different policies applied in each country are the main problem.

The stakeholders involved in the Province of Limburg are the municipalities and various interest

organizations. For Rijkswaterstaat it is especially the inhabitants and the organizations managing

nature areas. For the Région Wallonne, the Gestionnaires (Direction générale des Voies

hydrauliques, Provinces, Communes, Direction des Cours d’eau non navigables) ; DGATLPE

(Administration responsables for land management; Universities (Gembloux AgroBioTech, ULiège,

UCLouvain).

All organizations take measures to raise the awareness among the inhabitants. In the Province of

Limburg, this is made possible through the national websites and its flood risk maps (www.risico-

kaart.nl), the flyers which are produced for calamity management, the website water board Peel en

Meuse valley which contains postal code checked, detailed flood risk maps with inundation areas.

The stakeholders and citizens are especially involved during the plan development phase, via legal

plan participation.

Rijkswaterstaat uses flyers, websites, posters,

informative meetings, campaigns and activities for

pupils. More precisely, the meetings involve

stakeholders and citizens since they are mostly

informative, sometimes interactive, in order to

facilitate their involvement in the process.

The Région Wallon uses the plan “Prévention et

Lutte contre les Inondations et leurs Effets sur les

Sinistrés” (plan pluie). It contains a couple of

actions that seek to reduce vulnerability in flood

zone (flyers, information meetings, posters and

website).

Legal aspects

The FRMD has already been converted into national law in all the countries. The last organization

that has implemented it is the Région Wallonne. The directives have been adopted only recently, in

February 2010.

Accordingly to the FRMD, the Province of Limburg has data and flood risk maps available. They

forecast that flood risk maps must be finished in 2013 and the flood risk management plans must be

finished in 2015. The Rijkswaterstaat directorate and the Région Wallonne also use these flood risk

maps based on data about areas where there is a risk of flooding.

Figure 4.9 River Meuse, Godinne (Belgium) – Jean-Pol GRANDMONT

http://www.risico-kaart.nl/

http://www.risico-kaart.nl/

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Godinne_JPG001.jpg

36

The Province of Limburg and all organizations have international treaties on cooperation in trans-

boundary waters. For the Province of Limburg, it is the treaty of Namen in which the Action Plan

High water Meuse was adopted.

The Province of Limburg also experiences legal obstructions with the treaty on the Border Meuse,

because in the Netherlands, measures must be adopted by Flanders.

Policy aspects

In the Netherlands, the strategies used by the Province of Limburg are: strengthening and

heightening the dikes, creating extra space for the river, improving evacuation systems, building

outside of the river basin and its floodplains, building on mouths on floating platforms,

compartmentalisation which ensures that the water does not spread as far or rapidly. In the past,

the strategies were concentrated on strengthening and heightening dikes and on

compartmentalisation.

In Belgium, the Flemish create extra space

for the river, improve evacuation systems,

build outside of the river basin and its

floodplains and build on mouths on

floating platforms. They also increase

water retention. In the past, the strategies

were concentrated on strengthening and

heightening dikes, creating extra space for

the river, improving evacuation systems

and on compartmentalisation.

The Walloons implement strategies such

as strengthening & heightening dikes,

creating extra space for the river, improving

evacuation systems, building elsewhere (not

inside of the river basin). Some other measures taken are: the use of integrated management of the

rivers (including vegetal techniques for example); agricultural measures on the watershed to reduce

runoff and erosion and improving infiltration; land management (avoiding settlements in flood

prone area). In the past, the strategies were strengthening & heightening dikes and improving

evacuation systems.

Floodplains are used for cattle farming, arable farming, tourism, housing sites, industries and nature

and recreation in the Netherlands. In Walloon, the floodplains are used for the same purposes,

except for tourism.

The Province of Limburg experienced conflicts between the implementation of flood measures and

the ecologic function of the Meuse river basin. For example, natural forest development is not

allowed in floodplains because this will lead to a higher water level. Rijkswaterstaat also experiences

these kinds of problems.

Water retention, by introducing a more natural system in tributaries (especially low in the

catchment areas) may delay the flood peak, so that the risk of overlap with the flood peak on the

Figure 4.10 River Meuse, border Meuse Belgium/the Netherlands –

Martin van Lokven, Natuurmonumenten

37

main river may increase. Then, allowing a high density of vegetation on floodplains hinders the flow

of water and can increase the water level. The construction of dikes can affect the functioning of

natural systems (preventing flood plains from flooding, worsening the accessibility of the floodplains

from the river).

Broadening of the summer-bed can lower the groundwater level (desiccation even on a big

distance).

In Belgium, the Région Wallonne also experienced a conflict between the possibilities to build

retention areas and the areas protected by the program Natura 2000 Areas.

So far, the cross-border organizations also experienced economic conflicts. In the part of the

Netherlands managed by the Province of Limburg and Rijkswaterstaat, building in the floodplains is

not allowed anymore, since this also leads to higher water level in case of flood.

In Belgium the Région Wallon experienced conflicts between extra space for rivers and urbanized or

industrial areas because a lot of economic activities are situated in flood prone area, and building is

not allowed anymore.

Ecosystem measures are implemented by the cross-border partners. In the Netherlands, the

Province of Limburg strives towards an integral approach in which flood risk management is

integrated with other river related functions. Rijkswaterstaat is looking for equilibrium between

vegetation on floodplains and the flow of water lower of floodplains. This increases ‘space for the

river’ and creates nature areas.

The Région Wallonne is also looking for integrated management. The future actions program on the

river is viewed by an integrated and devised approach, taking into account the requirements of

directives 22000/60/EC and 2007/60/EC.3

4.3.3 Summary

The Meuse is the third largest river within the FLOOD-WISE project and it flows through five border

states in a densely populated area.

The frequency of meeting between cross-border authorities widely varies among the cross-border

organizations. Each partner (Province of Limburg, Rijkswaterstaat and the Région Wallonne) has

their own organization meeting within the country and across the border.

An example of the good cross border cooperation between the countries is the International Meuse

Commission, which meets three to four times a year. English is used in this international commission

through besides translation into the various other languages.

Common language depends on the contact, due to the variety of communities. The languages used

in communicating with the cross-border authorities for the Meuse river basin are French, Dutch,

German and English. Due to the use of many languages across the border, language is basically

viewed as a barrier for a good communication.

2 The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) aiming at protecting and improving quality of groundwater streams, lakes, canals and coastal water through coherent planning, management and monitoring based on the river basin concept. 3 The Flood Risk Management Directive is the same as Directive 2007/ 60/ EC.

38

Other aspects are considered as a barrier for good communication. It may be the different

administration systems, the different policies and interests, the hierarchical correspondences, but

also the cultural differences and the different interest. It is commonly recognized that the different

countries have different priorities; as floods may not everywhere have such disastrous

consequences, some countries attach more importance than others to the continuity and the level

of representation and to informal consultations. In some countries political lines are very important

and civil servants are used to play a ‘diplomatic/political role’. In addition, some countries have not

enough staff to fulfil all required actions.

39

4.4 The Western Bug river basin


The Western Bug river is a major European river which flows through three countries. It originates

from central Ukraine, forms the natural (and therefore shifting) border between Ukraine and Poland

(185km) and also between Belarus and Poland (178km) and ends in the Narew River near the

Zeyrzynski Lake. It is connected with the Vistula River which ends in the Balthic Sea. It is one of the

few European rivers where the natural character of the river bed has been mostly preserved along

its entire length.

The total area of the Bug river basin is 39,400 km2 of which 19,300 km2 (50%) in Poland, 11,400 km2

(26%) in Belarus and 8,700 km2 (24%) in Ukraine.

The climate of the Bug catchment is temperate, although average temperatures are lower compared

to central regions of Poland.

Figure 4.11 Bug river basin

40

In terms of annual changes in its levels, the river Bug is similar to lowland rivers. It experiences

spring flood due to snow thawing; this period witnesses the highest annual water level. Then a low-

flow period starts and lasts till October (sometimes mid-November). Summer floods often occur in

the headstream area, where the mountain part of the basin and favourable run-off conditions have a

strong influence. Autumn level increases are inconsiderable; in some years they do not happen

altogether. In wintertime, temporary ice-outs sometimes provoke ice-jams, causing an increase of

the level to up to 2m. Water levels are unstable due to the instability of ice cover.

Flood issue is relevant because flooding is sometimes a direct threat to industrial properties and

transport infrastructures. Flooding in the Bug river has caused damage both in built-up areas with

technical infrastructure and in precious natural ecosystems and the related inundation causes both

material and non-material damage. Only

limited flood control measures exist in the

Bug River Valley. The flood control measures,

that do exist, were built 20-40 years ago.

They require modernization and

reconstruction. In order to protect both

natural values and economic infrastructure,

it is a challenge to combine flood-control

measures in built-up areas with ecological

solutions in natural areas, using the river’s

own retention potential and controlled

flooding, while preserving its natural

character. The perception is that it is

necessary to establish a common strategy to

manage flooding and for warning and

measurement systems. If the Bug countries

work together according to common principles for flood control along the border marked by the Bug

River, all the interested parties can exchange data and establish uniform protection criteria.

The Western Bug has the following land characteristics:

o arable land (45%);

o meadows, pastures and orchards (nearly 20%);

o forests (little above 25%);

o the remaining 10% consist of waters, urban and village settlements and of unusable areas.

The Western Bug has the following functions:

o fishing;

o recreation;

o nature;

o waterway;

o agriculture;

o transportation;

o hydroelectric power stations;

o pond cultures;

Figure 4.12 River Bugat Wlodawa, Poland – Piotr Trochymiak

41

o industries (mining, oil industry, chemical industry, pulp and paper industry and machine

building).

In the past 50 years, the floods that exceeded the normal flood level values in Belarus were

registered in 1958, 1962, 1967, 1971 and 1974. The most serious spring flood was observed in 1979,

when the maximum water discharge was 19.1 m3/s (24/03/1979) at the village of Chersk, 166 m3/s

near the village of Tyukhinichi (Lesnaya river) (31/03/1979) and 269 m3/s near Brest (1/04/1979). A

similar spring flood occurred in 1999, when the spring run-off in March-May exceeded the average

annual value by 48%. The last time the Bug flooded in Poland and Ukraine was in 2010 and the last

time it flooded in Belarus was in 1999.


National, cross-border and international cooperation partners The Central Research Institute for Complex Use of Water Resources (CRICUWR) Belarus cooperates with the following organizations regarding flood-management in the Western Bug river basin:

The Central Research Institute for Complex Use of Water Resources (CRICUWR) Belarus

Within Belarus

Brest Regional Committee of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection

(MNREP) of the Republic of Belarus

Brest Regional Department of Hydrometeorology on a national level

Across the border

Lubelsky Woewodsky Inspectorate of Environment Protection

Bialostocky Woewodsky Inspectorate of Environment Protection

The District Office of Wlodawa (Poland) cooperates with the following organizations regarding flood-management in the Western Bug river basin:

The District Office of Wlodawa (Poland) Within Poland:

Regional Water Management - Inspectorate Wlodawa (RZGW); Provincial Board of Land Reclamation and Water Facilities (WZM i UW) - Group Field Wlodawa;

District Headquarters of State Fire (KP PSP);

District Police (KPP);

Communal Crisis Management Centre (GCZK); Communal Crisis Management Team (GZZK). Across the border:

Fire Department District Headquarters in Brest “MCzS” (ad hoc)

National University of Water Management and Nature Resources Use (Ukraine) cooperates with the following organizations regarding flood-management in the Western Bug river basin:

National University of Water Management and Nature Resources Use (Ukraine)

Within Ukraine:

State Committee of Ukraine of Water Management

Volhyn Regional Water Management Department

Lviv Regional Water Management Department

Western Bug Basin Water Department

State Administration of Environmental Protection in Rivne Region

42


Meetings between cross-border flood-management authorities in Poland an Belarus usually only

happen in case of a flood, this is also true for communication through e-mail and telephone. In

Ukraine, seminars, panel discussions and conferences are held regularly, but only on a national level.

When a flood occurs, meetings are everyday. This is also true for phone and e-mail communication.

The languages used in communicating are: Russian, Polish, Ukrainian and English.

Both Belarus and Poland agree that different administration systems, different interests and

different policies are, beside language, the biggest problems in communication. Ukraine thinks that

only the difference in administration systems is a crucial problem in communication. For Belarus it is

extra difficult to deal with different administration systems and policies, since the Bug is a cross

border river and Belarus is not a member of the European Union. In Poland, at the district level,

there is no guideline or task division to ensure communication to an international level.

In Belarus, there are no specific measures to raise awareness among inhabitants of the river basin

regarding flood risks. Poland, in the contrary, does take measures through consulting the Offices of

Commons in order to transfer any risks associated with new construction investments in the areas

flooded.

The Polish partner involves citizens and stakeholders through the constant cooperation of units of

the Volunteer Fire Brigade, Civil Defence teams flood. In Belarus, they are just notified in case of a

flood.

The stakeholders involved in the Ukraine are organizations belonging to the system of State

Committee of Ukraine of Water Management and organizations belonging to the system of Ministry

for Environmental Protection of Ukraine. Informative meetings, websites and other media are used

to raise awareness regarding flood-risk among inhabitants of the river-basin and other shareholders.

They are also involved in flood management plans. In case of emergencies citizens are involved as

well as specialists.

Legal aspects

The Flood Risk Management Directive has not been adapted into national legislation in Belarus.

Since Belarus is not a member of the European Union, it will obviously be hard to predict if and when

this will happen. Poland, on the other hand, has converted the FRMD into national legislation by

introducing the Act on Crisis Management of 26.04.2007.

Ukraine is now converting the FRMD into national legislation step by step. It will be hard to predict if

and when it will be totally converted.

Taking a look at mapping, we see that unlike Belarus, Poland and Ukraine keep data about areas

where flood risk occurs and have created maps based on these data. Though all three countries have

international treaties concerning trans-boundary water cooperation, the Polish partner nevertheless

complains about the absence of a fixed communication system to exchange information.

43

Policy aspects

In the past, all three countries improved their evacuation systems in order to minimize flood risk

consequences. Belarus and Ukraine also took measures by strengthening and heightening the dikes

and by building outside of the river floodplains. Poland only recently (in the last few years) started

building outside of the river floodplains. Together with Ukraine, they also use compartmentalisation,

this ensures that water does not spread as far or rapidly. Ukraine is the only country out of the

three that also creates extra space for the river.

Poland, Belarus and Ukraine use floodplains for cattle and arable farming, tourism and nature. In

Belarus and Ukraine they are also used for fishing. Belarus and Poland share the fact that they use

their floodplains for housing sites as well.

Poland is the only country of the three, that experiences a conflict between the implementation of

flood measures and ecologic functions within their river basin. They have restrictions called “Natura

20004” (which is not applicable to Belarus since it is not an EU country) which states that it is

prohibited the use explosives to remove ice jams. Poland also experiences conflict between the

implementation of flood measures and economic functions within their river basin: a prohibition on

construction in the flooded areas. Belarus suffers from neither conflicts.

In Ukraine, there is a conflict between the

implementation of flood measures and

economic functions within their river

basin. The cause of this conflict is due to

insufficient funds.

In Poland, ecosystem services of the river

basin are integrated in flood risk

management by taking the “Natura 2000"

into account. Ukraine integrates these

ecosystem services by closely cooperation

with a lot of ecosystem organisations of

the river basin.

4.4.3 Summary The Western Bug is the fourth largest river in the FLOOD-WISE project. It forms the natural border

between Poland and Ukraine and between Poland and Belarus (about 400km).

The cross-border flood-management authorities in Poland and Belarus usually meet when a flood

occurs. In Ukraine, seminars, panel discussions and conferences are held regularly. When a flood

occurs, meetings are everyday. This is also true for phone and e-mail communication.

4 Natura 2000 is an ecological network of protected areas, set up to ensure the survival of Europe's most valuable species and

habitats. Natura 2000 is based on the 1979 Birds Directive and the 1992 Habitats Directive. The green infrastructure it provides

safeguards numerous ecosystem services and ensures that Europe's natural systems remain healthy and resilient.

(http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/natura2000gis)

Figure 4.13 River Bug - ship yard at Nikolaev Ukraine

44

Cross-border communication in the Bug river basin happens in four different languages: Ukrainian,

Russian, Polish and English. This diversity in languages, results in the fact, that all three countries

experience language as a communication barrier. Different administration systems, different

interests and different policies are seen as the other key factors that stand in the way of perfect

international communication.

Since Belarus is not a member of the European Union, it is harder for them to deal with different

administration systems and policies.

Poland uses a lot more measures to keep the risks of flooding to a minimal. Belarus involves the

citizens in flood risk management by notifying them in case of a flood. Ukraine carries out trainings

of masters in trans-boundary water management to constantly improve their flood management

and international cooperation regarding flood management.

Unlike Poland and Ukraine, Belarus has not implemented the FRMD into national legislation. One of

the main reasons for this is that they are not a member of the European Union. This also results in

the fact that they don’t have to cope with for instance the “Natura 2000” and its restrictions.

A possible explanation why Poland and Ukraine take more measures when it comes to minimizing

the risks of flooding and managing the situation when an actual flood occurs, might be the date of

the last flood. The last time the Bug flooded in Poland and Ukraine was in 2010, where its last flood

in Belarus was in 1999. Since Belarus has not seen the Bug flood for over 10 years, they might not be

as worried as other countries.

45

4.5 The Somes river basin


The Somes river basin is a trans-boundary basin located in the north-western part of Romania and in

the north – eastern part of Hungary. It is one of the most important tributaries of the Tisza River and

therefore the river is also part of the greater catchment area of the Danube river. Its total length is

around 427 km, the Romanian part of the river has a length of 376km and the Hungarian part has a

Figure 4.14 Somes river basin

46

length of 51 km. The surface of the river basin is 18,146 km2 and has an average discharge level of

approximately 125 m³/s.

The Somes rises in the Romanian Carpathian Mountains and has its mouth in the Tisza River -

Vásárosnamény, Hungary. Furthermore, the river has an unusual birth having 2 springs:

1. Somesul Mare originates in the western part of the Rodna Mountains;

2. Somesul Mic originates from the union of Somesul Cald - rising in the Apuseni Mountain

range, on the eastern slope of the Bihor Mountains– and the Somesul-Rece rising in the Gilau

Mountains.

The geographical region comprising the Somes river basin is characterised by a great diversity of

landforms:

o plains (4%);

o hills (74%);

o mountains (22%).

The climate in the Somes river basin is moderate-continental, for which one may distinguish:

o plain climate in the west and north west part of the basin;

o hill and plateau climate in the south, south west and central parts of the basin;

o mountain climate in the rest of the basin.

The plain climatic area is characterized by hot and rainy summers and cold winters sometimes with

snowstorms, but also with warm periods, with a stable thick snow layer. The hill and plateau climate

is characterized by gradual decrease of temperature and increasing rainfall quantities with higher

altitude. The mountain climatic area is characterized by cool summers with abundant rainfalls and by

cold winters with abundant snowing for long periods of time.

The rainfall distribution in the Somes river basin is strongly influenced by the relief of the region,

with average annual values that vary from 600 mm/ m2 (Somes and Transylvanian Fields) to over

1400 mm/ m2 (in the Rodnei Mountains).

The land utilisation in the Somes river basin is non-uniformly distributed due to the large variety of

its landforms, vegetation cover and economic development. The Somes has the following land

characteristics.

o 40% covered by forests;

o 37% used for agriculture purposes: grain, hay and grass farming, fruit-, vegetable- and

animal-growing;

o 22% covered by urban-rural centres and used for various industrial purposes;

o 1% covered by waters (rivers, lakes and reservoirs) and used for water purposes.

According to the landforms of the basin, steppe vegetation is found in the plain areas; deciduous and

evergreen forests, and sometimes mixed, depending on the altitude, usually cover the hill and

mountain areas. In the Somes river basin, the average annual air temperature is of 7.9oC, ranging

from 9.7 0C at Satu Mare City to -2 0C in the Rodnei Mountains.

47

The Somes river basin is a well populated and economically developed (industry, agriculture and

forestry) region. The region is well populated and has major cities such as Cluj-Napoca, Baia Mare,

Satu-Mare, Bistrita and Zalau. There are also some smaller cities. In general, 52% of inhabitants live

in urban areas and 48% in rural areas. Population density within the river basin is 87.6 inhabitants/

km2.

The infrastructure of the region is well developed and comprises international, national and local

roads and railways; bridges and crossings, power generation units (hydroelectric power stations),

electrical lines (of high and medium voltage) with

transformation stations.

The major industries in the region are:

o extraction;

o metallurgic, chemical and mechanical

industries;

o forestry and furniture industries;

o textile industry;

o food and drinks industries.

The Somes has the following functions:

o industrial and drinkable water supply;

o irrigations;

o fishing;

o hydropower;

o recreation;

o nature.

Floods in the Somes river basin in Romania can form in any season due to rainfall or snowmelt,

usually the later being accompanied by the first. The typical Romanian floods are flash floods which

can last from 2 days to 3 days. The most significant floods in the last 40 years were: May 1970,

August 2005, and July 2008 which is the last flood that occurred in Romania. In Hungary the floods

appear because of the sudden change of territory. If Romania has higher forms of relief with rapid

rivers, the Hungarian plain cannot accommodate great quantities of water in a very short time. In

2010 the last flood occurred in Hungary.

Figure 4.15 River Somes - Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water

Directorate

48

4.5.2 Cross border cooperation


The Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water Directorate cooperates with the following

organizations regarding flood-management within the Somes river basin:

The Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water Directorate Within Hungary:

North-Hungarian Environmental and Water Directorate

Over-Tisza-regional Environmental and Water Directorate

Disaster Management Directorate of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County

Across the border:

Carpathian Water Directorate Somes –Tisa River Basin Water Administrations

The Somes –Tisa River Basin Water Administrations cooperates with the following organizations

regarding flood-management within the Somes river basin:

The Somes –Tisa River Basin Water Administrations Within Romania

County Inspectorates for Emergency

Situations

Prefect Institutions – County

Committees for Emergency Situations

Halls of Localities (cities, towns,

communes) – Local Committees for

Emergency Situations

National Meteorological Administration –

North Transilvania Regional Center

National Institute of Hydrology and Water

Management

Power generation companies

Administrations of Land Improvement Works

Across the border

Upper Tisa Environment Protection and Water Directorate, Nyregyhaza, Hungary

Transcarpathian Admistration of Melioration and Water Management, Ujgorod, Ukraine, for

Tisa River

Both partners do not have an international river commission. However, there is an international

river commission for the Danube river basin. As a tributary of the Tisza river basin the Somes is part

of the greater catchment area of the Danube river.


The Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water Directorate meets monthly with the cross-border

flood-management authorities to discuss cross-border flood-management. They have contact with

cross-border flood-management authorities through e-mail, telephone, and other media on a

weekly basis.

The Somes –Tisa River Basin Water Administrations meets with the cross-border flood-management

authorities once a year during the Flood protection Subcommittee under the Collaboration

Agreement for the protection and sustainable use of cross-border waters between Romania and

Hungary; twice a year during the inspections of the flood protection hydro technical works in cross-

border areas of common interests; and they meet if necessary, at the request of either party, after

49

major floods. There is daily contact through the operational information flow on the exchange of

hydro meteorological data and information, but also whenever necessary during the periods of high

water.

The partners of the Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water Directorate use Romanian,

Hungarian and Ukrainian to communicate with cross-border authorities of the Somes. The partners

of the Somes –Tisa River Basin Water Administrations also use Romanian and Hungarian and they

use English, if necessary. Both partners don’t experience language as a communication barrier. The

Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water Directorate does not experience any barrier for good

communication. However, the Somes –Tisa River Basin Water Administrations experiences a barrier

in the different administration system.

Stakeholders, such as hydro technical works and construction designers, companies of infrastructure

maintenance, telecommunication operators, forest administration, public health authorities and

inhabitants. Both partners raise awareness among the inhabitants of the river basin regarding flood-

risk. The Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water Directorate does this through flyers, a

website and movies. To involve stakeholders in flood management they have continuous contact

with the local governments, the Disaster Management Directorate of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg

County, and with these organizations they have group called County Committee on Defence. This is

the organization which guides the flood protection of the county. In this organization they deal with

the real flood protection/ management process.

The Somes –Tisa River Basin Water Administrations does this through informational meetings

(briefings with local authorities) and through simulation exercises in order to check the management

of high water situations. Stakeholders are involved through brochures and posters.

Legal aspects

The FRMD has already been converted into national law in Romania, but not in Hungary. However, it

is in process, Hungary has a regulation draft. Furthermore the exact date for converting it to national

law is still unknown.

In both countries there are data available about areas where flood risk occurs. However, no flood-

risk maps have been developed based on these data yet. In both countries international treaties on

cooperation in trans-boundary waters exist. Both partners do not experience any legal obstructions

in cross-border flood risk management.

Policy aspects

In the past the following measures have been taken to minimize the risks of flooding and its

consequences in Hungary: strengthening and heightening dikes. In Romania they have taken the

following measures in the past: strengthening and heightening dikes and dams,

compartmentalisation which ensures that the water does not spread as far or rapidly, development

and modernization of information flow decision, directed flooding areas and promotion and

execution of new hydro technical works.

Building reservoirs and strengthening and heightening dikes are the strategies regarding flood risk

management that are currently implemented in Hungary. In Romania strengthening and heightening

50

dikes and dams, compartmentalization which ensures that water does not spread as far or rapidly,

directed flooding areas and flood wave attenuation in the accumulations are the strategies regarding

flood risk management are currently implemented in Romania. Both in Hungary and Romania

floodplains are used for arable farming and nature. In Hungary floodplains are also used for housing

sites and in Romania they are also used for cattle farming.

Hungary has experienced conflicts between the implementation of flood measures and ecologic

functions within their river basin namely because of the method of translocation of some protected

plants, because vegetation has/ had to be eradicated (where necessary). Both countries have

experienced conflicts between the implementation of flood measures and economic functions.

Hungary has experienced this when the Vásárhelyi plan’s reservoirs were being implemented.

Romania had to recover the costs of maintaining the safety of the National System for Water

Management under the administration of the Somes –Tisa River Basin Water Administrations- itself.

Furthermore there were a lot of costs due to the implementation of the EC Directive 60/2007.

The Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water Directorate does not integrate ecosystem services

of the river basin in flood risk management within their organization. Unlike the Upper-Tisza-region

Environmental and Water Directorate, the Somes –Tisa River Basin Water Administrations does

integrate ecosystem services of the river basin in flood risk management within their organization.

The integration of criteria and principles of conservation and development of aquatic ecosystems is

performed by applying normative evaluation and selection of technical solutions to design and

execute hydro technical works for the water courses.

4.5.3 Summary

The Somes is one of the most important tributaries of the Tisza River (a main tributary of the

Danube). The Somes is the fifth largest river of the six rivers of the FLOOD-WISE project.

The Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water Directorate meets monthly with its partners

although the Romanian partner meets less with its partner organizations. Although they meet less,

the Romanian partner does have more contact

with its partners than the Hungarian partner has.

Both partners do not experience language as a

barrier for good communication. Although the

Hungarian partner does not see any obstacles in

communication, the Romanian partner

mentioned that different administration systems

are experienced as being a barrier for good

communication. Both partners involve their

stakeholders (and citizens) in flood risk

(management). However, they do this in

different ways.

A big difference in the legal aspect can be found

in that Hungary has not yet converted the FRMD

in national law. Romania did already convert the

FRMD in national law. Both partners do not

experience any legal obstructions.

Figure 4.16 River Somes - Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water

Directorate

51

In both countries the strategy of strengthening and heightening of dikes and dams is being used. But

apart from that, they use other strategies.

Both Hungary and Romania use their floodplains for arable farming and nature, but apart from that

they use their floodplains for different purposes. Hungary did not experience any conflicts between

the implementation of flood measures and ecologic functions, Romania did. They both experienced

conflicts between the implementation of flood measures and economic functions.

The Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water Directorate does not integrate ecosystem services

of the river basin in flood risk management within their organization. Unlike Hungarian partner, the

Romanian partner does integrate ecosystem services of the river basin in flood risk management

within their organization.

52

4.6 The Rur river basin

4.6.1 General River basin Information

The river Rur rises in the nature reserve “De Hoge Venen” in the Belgian Ardennes. It flows via the

German Eiffel, various industrial areas, cities/villages and vast agricultural areas to its mouth in the

river Meuse in Roermond, the Netherlands. Compared to its size in terms of average discharge

levels, length and surface, the Rur has a remarkable high population density of 524 per km².

With its length of 165 kilometres the river Rur is the shortest river basin in the FLOOD-WISE project.

With respect to its average discharge level of 22.7 m³/s and a surface of 2,338 km² it can be named

Figure 4.17 Rur river basin

53

with all respect the runt of the litter in this project. Therefore, the Rur river basin is considered a

small river basin.

The WVER divides its service area into three geographical parts which all have different

characteristics and functions:

o In the northern part of the Eiffel hillside, there are mainly forests and lakes (artificial dams),

a national park area, stock farming and tourism.

o In the middle, from Aix-la-Chapelle in the west to Düren in the east, there is an industrial

belt (paper industry, metal working, machine construction, confectionary industry). Aix-la-

Chapelle and Jülich are as well centres of scientific training and research).

o The flat areas of the northern parts

of the WVER service area are mainly

characterized by agriculture and

former coal mining.

The Rur has the following functions:

o flood control;

o drinking water supply;

o energy supply;

o recreation;

o industry;

o agriculture.

In the Netherlands agriculture is the main

purpose of land use. In Belgium, the Rur flows

through moors and forests.

Traditionally, there has been a close relationship between inhabitants and the river, because

traditional industry was based on the use of water (e. g. paper industry, textile industry), thus the

rivers in the WVER service areas “created” a lot of jobs. Today the river is a very important factor of

recreation (there is a vast system of promenades at the river banks of the Rur). A more and more

developed system of flood protection minimized the feeling or threat – which will perhaps become

an item again as a result of the consequences of climate change. Furthermore the river is used for

flood control, drinking water supply, energy supply, industry and agriculture.

In the past there have been floods on a large scale. These floods were influenced by flood

protections of the flood control dams (the so-called Rurtall Sperren). In the river basin in Belgium

there have been deluges. The number of floods over the last thirty years in the river basin the Rur is

about seven. In the years 1984 and 2007 there were floods in the upper catchment of the river

basin. There are flash floods as well as large scale inundations in the Rur basin. Since there is a large

inundation area for the Rur river available, there was not much impact on people, property and

environment. Floods are regulated by dams in the upper catchment in Germany. In this catchment

area there are predominantly local flood events, e.g. caused by thundershowers.

In the years 1980, 1983, 1984 and 1988 there were floods southwards of the flood control dams in

the river basin of the Rur and the damage that had been caused was only on property.

Figure 4.18 River Rur - Rurtalsperre Schwammenauel, Germany

54

In the river Meuse large scale inundations did occur in December 1993, January 1995, 2002 and

2003. In the past high water levels in the river Meuse drove up the water level of the river Rur in the

downstream area causing serious flood problems for the city of Roermond. However, recently

measures were taken in order to protect the city centre from flooding. In the catchment area of the

Rur there are also flood problems in conjunction with snow melting this occurs approximately every

five years.

In the Rur river basin floods occur in sub-catchments nearly every year during the summer. The Rur

river itself seriously flooded for the last time in Germany in 2001 and in the Netherlands in 2002.

4.6.2 Cross border cooperation


Wasserverband Eiffel-Rur cooperates with the following organizations regarding flood-management

within the Rur river basin:

Wasserverband Eifel-Rur Within Germany

The Federal State of Nordrhein Westfalen

Bezirksregierung Köln

County of Düren

County of Heinsberg

Across the border

The District Water board Roer & Overmaas

District Water Board Roer & Overmaas cooperates with the following organizations regarding flood-

management within the Rur river basin:

District Water Board Roer & Overmaas Within the Netherlands

The Province of Limburg

Rijkswaterstaat

Local municipalities

Across the border

WVER Bezirksregierung Köln


International Meuse Commission SubCie Maas-Rur Bil.VL-NL Maascie


Once every three months there is a meeting between the Dutch and German partners while their

contact through mail, phone or other devices takes place in the same sequence. Furthermore there

are contacts on an ad-hoc basis.

Dutch and German are the languages used in the contacts between the partners and language is not

experienced as a barrier for good communication. Coordination of actions and measures taken

between the different public bodies, both domestic and international, might be improved.

To raise inhabitants awareness of flood risk in Germany, there exists a flyer with information about

the flood management of the WVER. Additionally presentations of flood protection measures and

plans contribute to the involvement of stakeholders in flood risk management. In the Netherlands

the District Waterboard Roer & Overmaas makes use of their website to inform the river basin

inhabitants about measures taken with regard to flood (risk) management.

55

Legal aspects

The Flood Risk Management Directive is already been converted into national law in both the

Netherlands and Germany. There is sufficient data available to develop flood-risk maps, which

already has been done, even though in the Netherlands this is unofficially in the form of inundation

maps. However, there are no international treaties on cooperation in trans-boundary waters. None

of the partners experience legal obstructions in their cross border cooperation.

Policy aspects

In the past, risk reduction focussed mainly

on the strengthening & heightening of dikes,

creation of space for the river,

discouragement of building inside the river

basin, the creation of dam systems,

channelling rivers and flood retention basins,

while currently there is more attention for

the improvement of evacuation systems and

for the creation of flood retention basins in

smaller rivers.

Floodplains are used for different purposes

namely (cattle & arable) farming, fishing

(only in Germany), tourism and nature.

With respect to tension between the

implementation of flood measures and ecologic functions within the river basin, conflicts arise

between landscape conservation and nature re-establishment on the one hand and flood protection

on the other. This counts only for Germany, for the Dutch part there are no conflicts mentioned.

In both Germany and the Netherlands, economic aspects conflict with flood risk management with

regard to building activities. Since it is not allowed anymore to build in the near area of the river nor

in flood plains.

4.6.3 Summary

The river Rur is the smallest river in the FLOOD-WISE project. Especially its downstream area is

densely populated. Its small size is probably an important reason why the partners do not report a

lot of problems in their communication practices. They have regular contact and meet on an ad-hoc

basis whenever necessary. However, there may be a better coordination between the actions of the

different partners. Communication with stakeholders takes place mainly via the partners’ websites.

Both partners have rather elusive websites with a lot of information, pictures and maps. Moreover,

in Germany there exists a flyer in which flood measures are explained:

o www.wver.de

o www.roerenovermaas.nl

Legally the Rur river basin can be considered as rather harmonized. The FRMD is converted into

national law and with regard to other legal issues there are no obstructions mentioned.

Figure 4.19 River Rur - Fish ladder near Roermond, the Netherlands

http://www.wver.de/

http://www.roerenovermaas.nl/

56

It seems that the ecologic and economic functions in the river basin in general conflict with the

implementation of flood measures. This is of no difference in the Rur river basin. Although building

in the floodplains has been prohibited for a while now, parties often try nevertheless to get

permission for building activities. In this respect there still is some work to do in the area of

communication. Furthermore, building of flood retention basins often conflicts with the

conservation of nature.

57

5. Bibliography

Literature

o J.H. Bulthuis, Wonen in Nederland, the Netherlands: ThiemeMeulenhoff bv, 2007.

o A. Blaua, A.Fabian, L.Hojgrova, C.Janssen, A.Sanders & E.Schoonbroodt, FLOOD-WISE project

2008. Student report Europe Calling, Maastricht, the Netherlands: Zuyd University for

Applied Sciences, Department of European Studies (HEBO), 2008.

o G. Arnold, Watermanagement in the Netherlands, the Netherlands: Ministry of Transport,

Public Works and Water Management, 2009.

o E. v. Eijsbergen, Flood risk, Understanding concepts, the Netherlands: Ministry of Transport,

Public Works and Water Management, Directorate-General of Water Affairs, 2008.

o J. Verwijmeren & M. Wiering (eds.). Many rivers to cross. Cross-border co-operation in river

management. The Netherlands, Eburon Delft, 2007.

World Wide Web

o “Flood Awareness and Prevention Policy in Border Areas”: Euregio Meuse-Rhine<http://www.flapp.org/upload/122/FLAPP%20final%20report%20website%20version.pdf>.

o “Watermanagement door de eeuwen heen”: Stichting deltawerken Online

<http://www.deltawerken.com>.

o “Flood risk studies for Meuse River,Belgium”: Deltares

<http://www.wldelft.nl/cons/appl/hydrology/flood-risk.html>.

o “International watermanagement”: Verkeer en Waterstaat

<http://www.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl/english/topics/water/international_water_manageme

nt/international_river_basins/>.

o De internationale Maas commissie <http://www.meuse-

maas.be/page.asp?id=9&langue=NL>.

o “ Internationale Kommission zum Schutz der Elbe“ : Ikse MKOLhttp://www.ikse-

mkol.org/uploads/media/Text_a_tabulky_01.pdf.

o “ Sava basin”: The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River,

< http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/sava_basin.htm>.

http://www.flapp.org/upload/122/FLAPP%20final%20report%20website%20version.pdf

http://www.flapp.org/upload/122/FLAPP%20final%20report%20website%20version.pdf

http://www.deltawerken.com/

http://www.wldelft.nl/cons/appl/hydrology/flood-risk.html

http://www.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl/english/topics/water/international_water_management/international_river_basins/

http://www.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl/english/topics/water/international_water_management/international_river_basins/

http://www.meuse-maas.be/page.asp?id=9&langue=NL

http://www.meuse-maas.be/page.asp?id=9&langue=NL

http://www.ikse-mkol.org/uploads/media/Text_a_tabulky_01.pdf

http://www.ikse-mkol.org/uploads/media/Text_a_tabulky_01.pdf

http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/sava_basin.htm

58

o “River Sava Croatia”: Find Croatia <http://www.find-croatia.com/rivers-croatia/river-sava.html>.

o M. Rutkowski “Specific problems of transboundary water management along eastern borders of EU territories – with special attention to the Bug River Basin”: Institute of Meteorology and Water Management Warsaw, POLAND < http://www.feem-web.it/transcat_conf/conf_papers/Rutkowski.pdf>.

o European Union “Official EU website on River basin management” <http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/index.html>

o Wasserverband Eiffel-Rur official website <www.wver.de>

o District Water Board Roer & Overmaas official website <www.roerenovermaas.nl>

Pictures and Figures

o Figure 1.1 – Euregio Meuse-Rhine “Locations of FLOOD-WISE river basins“ Euregio Meuse-

Rhine

o Figure 3.1 to 3.21 – Own research results

World Wide Web pictures

o Figure 4.1 – NordNordWest “Drainage basin map of Elbe River” No Source Germany

<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Elbe_Einzugsgebiet.png>

o Figure 4.2 – Mathias Scholz/UFZ “River Elbe” Zentrum für Umweltforschung Germany

http://www.ufz.de/data/river-elbe2458.jpg

o Figure 4.3 – Andre Kuenzelmann/UFZ “River Elbe, Sandbucht“ Zentrum für

Umweltsforschung Germany Germany <http://www.ufz.de/data/river-elbe-sand-

bank2459.jpg>

o Figure 4.4 – International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)

“drainage basin map of the river Sava” ICPDR <http://www.icpdr.org/wim07-

mysql/download.php?itemid=14357&field=file1>

o Figure 4.5 – Szeder László “River Sava at Hrastník” Szeder László Slovenia

<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/SLO-Hrastnik1.JPG>

o Figure 4.6 – Julian Nitzsche “Sava-Drina Confluence, Bosnia and Herzegovina” Julian Nitzsche

Bosnia and Herzegovina

<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Sava_Drina_Confluence.JPG>

o Figure 4.7 – Province of Limburg “Meuse River Basin” – www.limburg.nl the Netherlands

http://www.feem-web.it/transcat_conf/conf_papers/Rutkowski.pdf

http://www.feem-web.it/transcat_conf/conf_papers/Rutkowski.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/index.html

http://www.wver.de/

http://www.roerenovermaas.nl/

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Elbe_Einzugsgebiet.png

http://www.ufz.de/data/river-elbe2458.jpg

http://www.ufz.de/data/river-elbe-sand-bank2459.jpg

http://www.ufz.de/data/river-elbe-sand-bank2459.jpg

http://www.icpdr.org/wim07-mysql/download.php?itemid=14357&field=file1

http://www.icpdr.org/wim07-mysql/download.php?itemid=14357&field=file1

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/SLO-Hrastnik1.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Sava_Drina_Confluence.JPG

http://www.limburg.nl/

59

o Figure 4.8 – Average precipitations in mm p/y www.risicokaart.nl

o Figure 4.9 – Jean-Pol Grandmont “River Meuse at Godinne, Belgium“ Jean-Pol GRANDMONT

Belgium < http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Godinne_JPG001.jpg>

o Figure 4.10 – Martin van Lokven “River Meuse, border Meuse Belgium/the Netherlands”

www.natuurmonumenten.nl the Netherlands

<http://www.natuurmonumenten.nl/content/grensmaas-0>

o Figure 4.11 – Microsoft Mappoint “Bug river basin”

o Figure 4.12 – Piotr Trochymiak “Bug River at Wlodawa, Poland” Piotr Trochymiak Poland

<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Bug_wlodawa01b-04.jpg>

o Figure 4.13 – Unknown author “Ship Yard on the Bug River at Nikolaev Ukraine” Unknown

Ukraine <http://www.panoramio.com/photos/original/1342102.jpg>

o Figure 4.14 – Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water Directorate “Somes river basin

map” http://www.fetikovizig.hu Hungary

o Figure 4.15 – Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water Directorate “River Somes”

http://www.fetikovizig.hu Hungary

o Figure 4.16 – Upper-Tisza-region Environmental and Water Directorate “River Somes”

http://www.fetikovizig.hu Hungary

o Figure 4.17 – Wasserverband Eiffel-Rur “Rur river basin map” www.wver.de Germany

<http://test.wver.de/php_alpha/diagram/graphics/pegeldaten_a4.png>

o Figure 4.18 – Christoph Paulus “River Rur Rurtalsperre Schwammenauel, Germany”

Christoph Paulus Germany

<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/CP_Rurtalsperre-Luft.jpg>

o Figure 4.19 – Unknown “River Rur, fish ladder near Roermond, the Netherlands” Unknown

the Netherlands <http://www.panoramio.com/photos/original/8251387.jpg>

http://www.risicokaart.nl/

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Godinne_JPG001.jpg

http://www.natuurmonumenten.nl/

http://www.natuurmonumenten.nl/content/grensmaas-0

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Bug_wlodawa01b-04.jpg

http://www.panoramio.com/photos/original/1342102.jpg

http://www.fetikovizig.hu/



http://www.wver.de/

http://test.wver.de/php_alpha/diagram/graphics/pegeldaten_a4.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/CP_Rurtalsperre-Luft.jpg

http://www.panoramio.com/photos/original/8251387.jpg

Appendix 1 – Partner letter

18 March 2010

Subject: FLOOD-WISE: Preparation for the kickoff event

Dear Sir/Madam,

As you know, the FLOOD-WISE project has started and will have its launch conference on the 27th of

April this year. To ensure a good kickoff of the event, it is essential that we gather some basic information

about the actual situation of cross-border water management in the partner regions.

On behalf of the Euregion Meuse Rhine – lead partner of the FLOOD-WISE project – a questionnaire has

been set up by third-year European Studies students of Zuyd University for Applied Sciences Maastricht,

in order to investigate the cooperation between different organizations that are involved in flood-risk

management for the following river basins: Meuse, Roer, Somes, Sava, Elbe and Bug. With this letter, we

would like to ask you if you would be so kind to complete this questionnaire. The main goal is to gather

accurate information about each of the six river basins mentioned above.

During the project development phase, another group of students of the Zuyd University for Applied

Sciences in Maastricht already made an inventory of geographic characteristics, flood problems, flood

policies and existing cross border cooperation structures in the FLOOD-WISE river basins. We would like

to ask you to please check the data in the previous study for it might be incomplete, incorrect or

outdated.

Please find attached both the questionnaire and the results of the previous study. Filling out the

questionnaire will take about 15 minutes and checking the results of the previous study will take about

45 minutes. Please return both the questionnaire and the revised results of the previous study to

[email protected] before the 3rd of April.

Using your answers from the questionnaire and the revised data from the previous survey, a new

research report with updated information will be created. With this report, we hope to contribute to an

improvement in future cooperation across borders between different organizations within international

river basins.

You will receive the research report before the launch event of the FLOOD-WISE project held in Brussels

on the 27th of April 2010. We highly appreciate your input as it is necessary to create a good knowledge

base to start the FLOOD-WISE project activities.

Yours sincerely,

Appendix 2 – Questionnaire

Questionnaire FLOOD-WISE Project

The aim of this questionnaire, is to find out to what extent authorities cooperate regarding flood risk

management across the border. Please check whether your contact details below are correct and

make changes if necessary.

Please return this questionnaire before the 3rd of April 2010 to: [email protected]

Contact details Flood Wise partner

River basin: Organization: Contact person FLOOD-WISE project: E-mail address: Phone number:

A. General river basin information

A1. When did the last flood occur in your river basin?

A2. Which organizations are you cooperating with regarding flood-management in your river basin?

Please make a distinction between organizations in your own country and organizations at the

other side of the border.

Organizations within your

country:

Organizations across the

border:

International River

commission(s):

1.

2.

3.

4.

1.

2.

3.

4.

1.

2.

3.

4.

mailto:[email protected]

B. Communicative aspects

B1. How often do you meet with the cross-border flood-management authorities to discuss cross-

border flood-management?

o Daily

o Weekly

o Monthly

o Every two months

o Other, namely:

B2. How often do you have contact through e-mail / telephone/ other with cross-border flood-

management authorities to discuss cross-border flood-management?

o Daily

o Weekly

o Monthly

o Every two months

o Other, namely:

B3. Which language(s) is / are used in communicating with the cross-border authorities of your

river basin?

1. 3.

2. 4.

B4. Do you experience language as a communication barrier?

o Yes

o No

B5. Are there any other aspects you consider as a barrier for good communication and cooperation?

o Different administration systems

o Cultural differences (please explain in box below)

o Different interests (please explain in box below)

o Different policies

o Technical aspects

o Other(s), namely:

B6. Which stakeholders are involved in flood-risk management?

B7.1 Do you take measures to raise the awareness among the inhabitants of the river basin regarding flood-risk?

o Yes

o No

B7.2 If so, please explain? (E.g. flyers, websites, posters, informative meetings, campaigns, etc.)

B8. How do you involve stakeholders and citizens in flood management?

C. Legal aspects

C1. Has the FRMD (Flood Risk Management Directive) already been converted into national

legislation on flood management?

C2. If not, when do you expect the process of converting the FRMD into national legislation on

flood management to be completed?

C3. Are there any data available about areas where flood risk occurs?

o Yes

o No

C4. Have flood-risk maps already been developed based on these data?

o Yes

o No

C5. Are there any international treaties on cooperation in trans-boundary waters?

o Yes

o No

C6. Do you experience any legal obstructions in cross-border flood risk management?

o Yes

o No

If yes, please verify:

D. Policy aspects

D1.1 Which kind of strategies regarding flood risk management are currently implemented in your country?

o Strengthening & heightening dikes o Creating extra space for the rivers o Improving evacuation systems o Building elsewhere (not inside of the river basin) o Building on mouths on floating platforms o Compartmentalisation which ensures that the water does not spread as far or rapidly o Other, namely:

D1.2 What measures have been taken in the past to minimise the risks of flooding and/or its consequences?

o Strengthening & heightening dikes o Creating extra space for the rivers o Improving evacuation systems o Building elsewhere (not inside of the river basin) o Building on mouths on floating platforms o Compartmentalisation which ensures that the water does not spread as far or rapidly o Other, namely:

D2. What do you use floodplains for?

o Cattle farming

o Arable farming

o Fishing

o Tourism

o Housing Sites

o Industries

o Nature

o Other, namely:

D3. Have you experienced any conflicts between the implementation of flood measures and

ecologic functions within your river basin?

o Yes

o No

If yes, please give an example:

D4. Have you experienced any conflicts between the implementation of flood measures and

economic functions within your river basin?

o Yes

o No

If yes, please give an example:

D5. Do you integrate ecosystem services of the river basin in flood risk management within your

organization?

o Yes

o No

If yes, please explain:

E. Comments

If you have any other comments or remarks which you would like to add, please use the space below.

Thank you for filling out this survey. You will receive the research report before the launch event of

the FLOOD-WISE project held in Brussels, April 2010.

Appendix 3 – River basin characteristic schemes

On the following pages you can find the schematic overviews of the different river basin

characteristics.

1. River Elbe

2. River Sava

3. River Meuse

4. River Bug

5. River Somes

6. River Rur

1. River Elbe

Origin Giant Mountains, Czech Republic Mouth North Sea, Germany Basin countries Czech Republic, Germany, Austria, Poland Length 1,094 km Source elevation 1,386.3 metres above sea-level Average discharge 861 m³/s Surface 148,268 km

2

Climate, precipitation Mild climate zone, annual precipitation amount – 630mm River discharge characteristics 311 m³/s in Hřensko (Czech-German border)

728 m³/s on lower reach (in Geesthacht)

70-75 % of the floods are in winter or spring due to the snowmelt and long-lasting precipitation

Main tributaries Vltava

Ohře

Saale

Havel

Mulde

Black Elster Land use characteristics Agricultural land (49.4%)

Woods (26.7%)

Grass growths (8.6%)

Different type of surface (15.3%) Functions of the river Waterway transport – personal and cargo

Water inlet

Operation of hydro-electric power plants

Drinking water (artificial lakes)

Fishing, Sport, Recreation Population density within the river basin

170 inhabitants per km2

24.52 million people

5.95 million people (58.3% from whole population) in the Czech Republic

18.5 million people (22.4%) in Germany Languages used by inhabitants in the river basin

Czech, German, Polish

Common language used in cross-border communication

Czech, German, Polish, English

Relationship of inhabitants with the river

Benefit: recreation area, tourism

Threat: inundation area

Emotionally positive to those living at its banks, beneficial to entrepreneurs and employees working for example at ports

Neutral to inhabitants living away from the river

2. River Sava

Origin 2 sources: - Zelenci near Rateče, at the foothills of the Julian Alps

on one side and Karavanke on other side as Sava Dolinka; Slovenia

- Waterfall Savica which after some hundred meters flows into the Lake of Bohinj and from there as Sava Bohinjka, Slovenia

Both are joined into Sava near the town Radovljica, Slovenia

Mouth Danube, Belgrade, Serbia Basin countries Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia,

Montenegro, Albania Length 945km Source elevation 1,222m Average discharge 1,722 m³/s Catchment area 95,719 km² Climate, precipitation Alpine, pannonic and continental. The average precipitation is

1,593mm per year in Slovenia and 1,000mm per year west and 600mm per year east in Croatia

River discharge characteristics The mean annual discharge at the point joining the Danube in Belgrade is about 1,700 m3/s

Main tributaries Savinja, Mirna, Krka, Kupa, Lonja, Orljava, Bosut, Una, Vrbas, Ukrina, Bosna, Tinja, Lukovac, Drina, Kolubara

Land use characteristics Mountains 5 %

Forests 25 %

Wetlands about 60,000 ha

Pastures 25 %

Agriculture 40 %

Few Irrigated lands

In Slovenia is the area highly populated and mainly covered by forests

Functions of the river - Source for drinking water - Navigation routes - Boating - Fish angling activities - Navigable waterways - Recreational sports - Mills & saw mills - Mineral & thermal water abstractions - Hydropower use

Population density within the river basin In Croatia 2,211,900 inhabitants with tributaries and 1,317,000 inhabitants directly in the watershed

Languages used by inhabitants in the river basin

Croatian / Slovenian/ Serbian


English (Sava Commission)/ Croatian / Slovenian/ Serbian

Relationship of inhabitants with the river Both: beneficial and threat

3. River Meuse

Origin Pouilly-en-Bassingy, France Mouth Hollands Diep, North Sea Basin countries France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Netherlands, Length 925km Source elevation 384m Average discharge 350 m³/s Surface/ Catchment area 34,500 km² Climate, precipitation Moderate maritime climate

The average annual precipitation ranges from 1,000–1,200 mm in the Ardennes to 700–800 mm in the Dutch and Flemish lowlands.

River discharge characteristics The average discharge of the Meuse is approximately 350 m³/s. The average summer discharge of the Meuse is about one quarter of the average winter discharge. At Borgharen, in the Netherlands, the average discharge is about 250 m³/s.

Main tributaries (upstream-down) Chiers, runs through Luxembourg, Belgium and France

Sambre, runs through France and Belgium

Semois, runs through Belgium

Viroin, runs through Belgium

Lesse, runs through Belgium

Ourthe, runs through Belgium

Roer, runs through Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands

Niers, runs through Germany and the Netherlands

Land use characteristics About 60% of the Meuse basin is used for agricultural purposes (including pastures) and 30% is forested

Functions of the river Conduit for rainwater

Transport route for inland shipping

Source for drinking water

Recreational activity

Used for industrial processes and for cooling

Hydropower

Agriculture

Source of sand and gravel

Recreation

Nature (Natura 2000, ecological function and

corridor) Population density within the river basin

About 9 million inhabitants per 35,000 km: Average: 250 inhabitants per square km.


French, Dutch, German


Depends on contacts, with Flanders the language is Dutch, which Germany German and with France and Walloon it is French. In the International Meuse Committee everyone speaks in its own language and simultaneous translation is taken care for. Generally, language is a barrier that makes interaction/communication sometimes difficult

Relationship of inhabitants with the river (e.g. beneficial or threat?)

Mostly beneficial, sometimes threat in cases of floods.

4. River Bug

Origin East Roztozce in the Liv Region in Ukraine Mouth Narew river near the Zegrzynski Lake in Poland Basin countries Ukraine, Poland and Belarus Length The total length of the Bug river is 772 km

Ukraine - 184.4km Border between Ukraine and Poland - 185.0km Border between Belarus and Poland - 178.0km Poland - 224.6km

Average discharge The yearly average discharge at the northern point of state border is 118 cm (ca 77 % of average discharge in the mouth to Narew)

Surface The total area of the Bug river basin is 39,400 km2

Poland – 19,300 km2 (50%)

Belarus – 11,400 km2 (26%)

Ukraine – 8,700 km2 (24%)

Climate, precipitation Temperate, although average temperatures are lower comparing to central regions of Poland. The annual precipitation quantity varies from 600 to 750 mm in Ukraine and the annual amount of precipitation is 545 mm on the average in Belarus, Poland - annual precipitation quantity 516 mm.

River discharge characteristics Average annual discharge on the border with Belarus is about 50 m/second. On leaving the border of Belarus – 100 m

3/second.

The highest level of tide within the length of the river is 3-6 m. Main tributaries Poltva, Sołokija, Bukowa, Huczwa, Uherka, Włodawka, Krzna,

Liwiec, Ług, Mukhavets, Leśna, Nurzec, Brok, Warenzhanka Land use characteristics - Arable land (45%)

- Meadows, pastures and orchards (nearly 20%) - Forests (little above 25%). -The remaining 10% consist of waters, urban and village settlements and of unusable areas.

Functions of the river - Fishing - Recreation - Nature - Waterway - Agriculture - Transportation - Hydroelectric power stations - Pond cultures - Industries (mining, oil industry, chemical industry, pulp and paper industry and machine building)

Population density within the river basin

The population in the catchments area is: 2.0 million inhabitants on Ukrainian side 0.5 million in Belarus and 1.1 million in Poland


Ukrainian, Polish, Russian, and Belarusian


Russian, English, Polish, Ukrainian

Relationship of inhabitants with the river

Mostly beneficial, sometimes threat in cases of floods.

5. River Somes

Origin Romanian Carpathian Mountains Mouth Tisza River - Vásárosnamény, Hungary Basin countries Romania and Hungary Length 427km Source elevation 2 springs:

Somesul Mare – Somesul Mic -

Average discharge 125 m3/s at the border

Surface 18,146 km

2

Climate, precipitation Temperate continental. The influences are distributed on a West - East axis and also on an altitudinal axis.

River discharge characteristics Influenced by season

Main tributaries Romania – Almas, Lapus, Crasna

Land use characteristics Agriculture Industrial activities

Functions of the river Industrial and drinkable water supply Irrigations Fishing Hydropower Recreation Nature


87. 6 inhabitants/ km2


Romanian and Hungarian


No common language - translation


Mostly beneficial

6. River Rur

Origin Sourbrodt, in the Hautes Fagnes/ Hohes Venn National Park in Belgium.

Mouth Meuse at Roermond Basin countries Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands Total Length Germany The Netherlands

166 km 144 km 22 km

Source elevation Origin 660 m NAP

Avg. discharge 20,000-25,000 litres per second, approx. 22.7m³/s Surface 2,338 km² Climate, precipitation Ø 855 mm/a River discharge characteristics Discharge by flood control dam controlled Land use characteristics In Germany the land is used for industry, live areas for the

population and agriculture. In the Netherlands it is basically agricultural with some nature reserves. In Belgium there is nature around the Rur

Functions of the river Flood control, drinking water supply, energy supply, recreation, used for the industry and agriculture.


About 500 per km² 524 per km² in Germany


German, Dutch and French


German, English


Beneficial because of the use-possibilities.

Floodwise Projekt englisch - LfU · The Elbe is the largest river of the FLOOD-WISE project. The...

Documents

Transcript of Floodwise Projekt englisch - LfU · The Elbe is the largest river of the FLOOD-WISE project. The...