potvynių rizikos įvertinimo ir valdymo procesuose matomos korupcinės rizikos

Specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba (STT) has identified corruption risks in flood risk assessment and management processes overseen by the Ministry of the Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In a report released on Monday, the agency said legal gaps and procedural weaknesses create conditions for opaque or inconsistently applied decisions that may unduly benefit certain individuals or companies while failing to protect the public interest. Such decisions, STT noted, directly affect public safety, territorial planning, construction permitting, and the value of land in flood-prone areas.

The analysis focused on practical examples from Kaunas City and Kaunas District. According to EPA data, floods threaten about 28,000 hectares of urban and rural areas, home to more than 42,000 residents, and a single extreme flood could cause damage exceeding €250 million. STT emphasized that the scale of these processes and their potential impact are critical to public safety, environmental protection, and the allocation of EU funds and state resources.

During the review, STT highlighted that current regulations grant the Ministry of the Environment and the EPA broad discretion in deciding which institutions to involve in drafting flood risk documents, without clear, objective criteria for inclusion. This could lead to centralised decision-making by the ministry and EPA alone, without consulting other competent bodies.

STT found that flood risk map corrections were discussed in unminuted meetings at the vice-ministerial level, without adhering to mandatory public consultation deadlines—raising the risk of abuse and violations of public interest. The agency also noted overlapping functions between the ministry and the EPA, with no clear delineation of responsibilities.

In one case, a developer sought to adjust a flood risk map for a specific plot, potentially easing construction restrictions. After the EPA refused, the developer appealed to the Ministry of the Environment, which reversed the decision. Public participation in the map revision process was also not properly ensured.

STT further found that hydrological calculations were not performed when updating flood risk maps, and boundaries were adjusted using an unregulated methodology based solely on terrain elevations, without assessing the legality of changes or their impact on surrounding areas. For example, in 2022, elevation changes were not evaluated for legal compliance or risk to other territories.

The current legal definition of a flood does not include inundation from drainage systems, meaning some recurring flood events remain unrecognised at the state level and are excluded from risk assessments. As a result, such flooding is ignored in land-use planning, construction permitting, and priority-setting for preventive measures—despite causing damage to property, infrastructure, and potentially endangering public safety.

STT also warned that soil filling in flood-prone areas may be used to artificially raise land elevations, enabling subsequent requests to revise flood risk maps in favour of landowners, without considering impacts on neighbouring properties.