kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Europaudvalget 2019
KOM (2019) 0095
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 26.2.2019

SWD(2019) 31 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

European Overview - Flood Risk Management Plans

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND

THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods

Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans

{COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} -

{SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} -

{SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} -

{SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} -

{SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} -

{SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} -

{SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} -

{SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} -

{SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} -

{SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} -

{SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} -

{SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} -

{SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} -

{SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} -

{SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} -

{SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} -

{SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} -

{SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} -

{SWD(2019) 84 final}

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction..................................................................................................................... 12

1.1. Rationale for continued action at the EU level ........................................................ 13

Main elements of the Floods Directive........................................................................... 18

2.1. The objectives and key provisions of the Floods Directive ..................................... 18

2.2.

The European Commission’s 2015 implementation report

.................................... 20

Approach to the Assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans ............................ 22

Part A. Assessment of Member State Flood Risk Management Plans ................................... 24

Governance of Flood Risk Management ....................................................................... 24

4.1. Administrative level for the preparation of FRMPs ............................................... 24

4.2. Adoption and legal status of the FRMPs .................................................................. 27

4.3. Strategic Environmental Assessments ...................................................................... 30

4.4. Overview of Member State reporting of the FRMPs .............................................. 31

4.5. Links to previous plans .............................................................................................. 32

Public information and consultation ............................................................................. 34

5.1. Information provision on the consultation process ................................................. 35

5.2. Consultation mechanisms .......................................................................................... 37

5.3. Active involvement of stakeholder groups ............................................................... 38

5.4. Incorporating consultation results in the FRMPs ................................................... 42

5.5. Summary of good practice and areas for further development ............................. 43

Integration of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and Flood Hazard Maps and

Flood Risk Maps ....................................................................................................................... 46

6.1. Overview of the previous steps .................................................................................. 46

6.2. Conclusions of the PFRAs .......................................................................................... 49

6.3. Conclusions from the FHRMs ................................................................................... 53

6.4. Coordination with other Member States and third countries ................................ 58

6.5. Summary of good practice and areas for further development ............................. 60

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Setting objectives for the management of flood risks .................................................... 62

7.1. Overview ...................................................................................................................... 62

7.2. Specific and measurable objectives ........................................................................... 69

7.3. Setting the objectives: coordination .......................................................................... 71

7.4. Summary of good practices and areas for further development ............................ 72

Measures for the achievement of objectives................................................................... 73

8.1. Measurable and specific flood risk management measures (including location) . 76

8.2. Location ....................................................................................................................... 76

8.3. Linking objectives and measures .............................................................................. 79

8.4. Prioritisation of the measures .................................................................................... 83

8.5. Responsible authorities .............................................................................................. 88

8.6. Progress of implementation ....................................................................................... 90

8.7. Measures taken under other Community Acts ........................................................ 92

8.8. Inclusion of specific groups of measures .................................................................. 93

8.9. Monitoring progress in implementation ................................................................. 101

8.10.

8.11.

8.12.

Financing of measures .......................................................................................... 104

Coordination with the WFD ................................................................................. 109

Summary of good practice and areas for further development ........................ 113

Consideration of costs and benefits and use of CBA ................................................... 117

9.1. Overview of the consideration of costs and benefits in FRMPs ........................... 117

9.2. Overview of the methodologies applied .................................................................. 121

9.3. Summary of good practice and areas for further development ........................... 124

10.

Consideration of the likely impacts of climate change ................................................ 126

Integration of climate change in the PFRA and FHRM stages......................... 127

Addressing climate change in the FRMPs .......................................................... 127

Climate change adaptation measures .................................................................. 134

No-regret measures to address climate change .................................................. 135

Summary of good practices and areas for further development ...................... 136

10.1.

10.2.

10.3.

10.4.

10.5.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Part B. International coordination within the framework of the Floods Directive ............. 138

11.

Overview of international cooperation for flood risk management in the EU ........... 138

Main elements of the FD related to international issues.................................... 139

Types of international coordination .................................................................... 139

Overview of international cooperation and coordination frameworks ............ 142

11.1.

11.2.

11.3.

11.4. Conclusions from previous phases of the flood risk management cycle in

transboundary RBs............................................................................................................. 144

Recommendations for transboundary cooperation in the framework of the FD ................. 168

Annex 1

Annex 2

Annex 3

Annex 4

Annex 5

Member State FRMPs assessed .......................................................................... 170

Overview of measures by aspect ......................................................................... 173

List of measure aspects and types ....................................................................... 174

Map of iRBD for which an assessment was carried out .................................... 175

Overview of international coordinating mechanisms ........................................ 176

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Acronyms

APSFR

CBA

CIS

CIS-WGF

EEA

EIA

ESIF

EUSF

FHRM

FRMP

iFRMP

iRBD

iUoM

NWRM

PFRA

RBD

RBMP

SEA

UCPM

UoM

WFD

WISE

Area of Potential Significant Flood Risk

Competent Authority

Cost-benefit analysis

Common Implementation Strategy of the Water Framework Directive and

the Floods Directive

CIS Working Group on Floods

European Environment Agency

Environmental Impact Assessment

European Structural and Investment Funds

European Union

European Union Solidarity Fund

Floods Directive (Directive 2007/60/EC)

Flood Hazard and Risk Map

Flood Risk Management Plan

international FRMP

international River Basin District

international Unit of Management

Natural Water Retention Measures

Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment

River Basin

River Basin District

River Basin Management Plan

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Union Civil Protection Mechanism

Unit of Management

Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC)

Water Information System for Europe

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Executive Summary

Partly in response to the large floods along the Danube and Elbe rivers in the summer of 2002

and partly in response to mounting evidence that socioeconomic development

and climate

change increase the chances that floods in Europe could become more catastrophic and

frequent, in November 2007 the Floods Directive (FD) entered into force. The purpose of the

Directive is to establish a framework for the assessment and management of flood risks,

aiming at reducing the adverse consequences for human health, the environment, cultural

heritage and economic activity associated with floods.

The Directive takes a three step cyclical approach to flood risk management by requiring

Member States to (1) undertake, by December 2011, preliminary flood risk assessments

(PFRA) leading to the identification of areas that are at significant risk of flooding, known as

areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFR); (2) by December 2013, prepare flood hazard

and risk maps (FHRM) showing how far floods might extend, the depth or level of water and

the impacts there might be on human health, the economy, environment and cultural heritage

and, finally, (3) prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMP)

. These Plans were to be

published by December 2015 and reported by March 2016 to the European Commission. Some

FRMPs however were reported with delay and for two Member States the length of the delay

did not allow for the inclusion

of any of their FRMPs in the Commission’s assessment,

consequently these are not discussed in the present Overview

The Commission’s assessment

draws on two main sources: (1) depending on the number of

FRMPs established in each MS either on all FRMPs, or on a representative sample and (2)

Member State reporting to the European Commission (covering all FRMPs)

. The assessment

focuses on and summarises the progress made in the process of managing flood risk in 26

Member States. It also identifies areas for further development. It can be concluded that

Member States made good efforts in the preparation of their first ever FRMPs under the FD,

with solid results. Various challenges in connection to flood risk management have also been

identified, which should be addressed, depending on their nature, during the 2

cycle of

E.g. through the encroachment of assets into floodplains.

Over 270 FRMPs were eventually prepared across the 28 Member States.

This is the case for Greece’s and the Republic of Ireland’s FRMPs, which were not included in the assessment.

The Republic of Ireland reported in May 2018 and Greece reported in October/November 2018. A FRMP for

Spain’s Canary Islands was not reported as of yet.

The present report reflects the situation as reported by each Member State to the European Commission in 2016

or 2017 and with reference to FRMPs prepared earlier. The situation in the MSs may have altered since then.

The format for reporting was jointly elaborated by the Member States and the European Commission as part of a

collaborative process called the “Common Implementation Strategy”.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

implementation of the Directive (2016 to 2021) and in subsequent cycles

. Indeed, whereas

establishing and publishing the Plans is an obligation under the Directive, the envisaged

function of the Plans should primarily be that of a management tool, employed for the

reduction of potential adverse consequences from significant flooding. In this sense, the

recommendations put forward in the EU overview and the individual Member State

assessments aim at strengthening flood risk management in the EU on the basis of good

practice as it emerges from the implementation of the FD by the Member States themselves.

Governance and public participation

In almost all Member States the FRMPs have been adopted at various administrative levels and

through various acts

. In almost all Member States the FRMPs underwent a Strategic

Environmental Assessment (SEA), either across the board or in at least some Units of

Management (UoMs)

. In 20 of the Member States assessed, objectives for flood risk

management were set at the national level or by adapting national level objectives to

regional/local circumstances. National and municipal authorities were reported by 19 and 18

Member States respectively as responsible for the implementation of measures to achieve the

set objectives. For the majority of measures more than one authority was reported.

The Directive requires Member States to encourage the active involvement of interested parties

in the production, review and updating of the FRMPs. All Member States used a variety of

information channels for outreach to the public and stakeholders (most made draft FRMPs

available via the internet, which was also the primary medium for the submission of written

comments) and a broad range of stakeholders were involved in the preparation of the FRMPs,

e.g. civil protection authorities were involved in 19 Member States in at least some of the

UoMs assessed. Less information was found in the FRMPs, or Member State reporting, on

how the effects of the consultation were taken into account; for ten Member States,

information was not found for some or all UoMs assessed.

There is no “sunset clause” in the Floods Directive.

The establishment of the FRMP for the Canary Islands in Spain is pending. The Lithuanian FRMP was not

adopted, instead the FRMP is a supporting document for the Water Sector Development Programme 2017-

2023 and its Action Plan.

UoMs in the sheer majority

of Member States coincide with the Water Framework Directive’s River Basin

Districts. Member States have designated a total of 209 UoMs for the implementation of the FD.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Integration of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment and the Flood Hazard and Risk

Maps

To ensure FRMPs are as integrated as possible and to provide for continuity between the three

steps of the flood risk management cycle, the FD foresees that the FRMPs will include the

conclusions of the PFRA and FHRM steps. Indeed, all except two Member States

reported the

conclusions of their PFRAs

as well as the conclusions of the FHRMs in their FRMPs. The

FRMPs assessed, along with Member State reporting, provide some information in nearly all

Member States

on how the FHRMs were used to prepare the Plans themselves. Detail on the

choice of flooding sources included in the FRMPs were found in the FRMPs of few Member

States

, still, almost all Member States, save for four

, provide at least some information

about the sources of flooding considered in the FRMPs assessed.

Setting of objectives

According to the FD, Member States shall establish appropriate objectives for the management

of flood risks. All MS set such objectives. In terms of number of objectives, some Member

States set a few broad objectives, other Member States presented a larger number, often of

more specific sub-objectives. An almost equal number of Member States (ten and nine

respectively) explicitly set objectives for the reduction of the potential adverse consequences

from flooding and for reducing the likelihood of flooding; the later objective however was on

the whole represented less prominently in the FRMPs assessed than the former.

Whereas the objectives in 12 Member States include at least some specific and measurable

elements, the objectives in 14 Member States are neither specific nor measurable in terms of

what, where and by when should be achieved. Concretely defining measures and clearly

linking these measures to objectives could serve as an alternative to defining specific

objectives, provided the measures are selected and designed in such way that their completion

would result in achieving the objectives set. 11 of the Member States included in this

assessment made a link between their objectives and the measures to achieve them; five did so

only for some UoMs and 11 did not establish a clear link. Three Member States

–

and only for

Belgium and France for the PFRA and Malta and France for the FHRM.

There are currently more than 7.000 APSFRs in the EU. Roughly 40% of these are located in Croatia. In

Hungary two vast areas are designated as its APSFRs.

For Croatia and Malta no information was found at the time of the assessment.

Including Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Luxembourg and Sweden.

For Belgium, Malta and Romania, the FRMPs assessed do not provide information concerning the sources of

floods considered, while for Bulgaria the information is provided in some but not all FRMPs assessed.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

some of the UoMs

–

explained how the implementation of measures will lead to the

achievement of objectives

Not all objectives being elaborated to a degree that would allow them to be monitored against

progress and not all measures being clearly linked to the objectives they seek to achieve, these

taken together may pose a challenge for the 2

cycle when the MS will provide an assessment

of the progress made towards the achievement of the objectives.

Measures for the achievement of objectives

FRMPs should include measures for achieving the objectives established by the Member

States. All Member States provided a list of measures and summary information for each

measure. The number of measures varies significantly across the Member States, ranging from

few individual measures to thousands of measure groups. More than half of the Member States

assessed provided elements in terms of what the measures are trying to achieve, where (and

which area their effects will cover), how and by when. Around 40% of the measures are

protection measures, 25% prevention measures, another 25% preparedness and the remaining

10% recovery measures. In some cases, Member States have indicated that further specificity

concerning measures will be developed in separate plans.

All MS reported on the prioritisation of their measures, either on a five point scale

, or as a

timetable. To illustrate, around 10% of the measures reported were of critical priority, 60%

were of very high or high priority, 20% of moderate priority and the remainder of low priority.

Many FRMPs provide at least some information on how progress achieved in the

implementation of measures will be monitored, though in many cases with little detail

. All

Member States assessed indicated the progress achieved at the time of reporting in the

implementation of measures. These being the 1

FRMPs, about half of the measures were

reported as not started. Roughly two-thirds of the Member States provided information on the

methods used for prioritising the measures.

Specifically in terms of non-structural initiatives (i.e. measures not involving civil engineering

structures), the FRMPs of all Member States assessed make reference to spatial planning

and/or land use, however, the extent of information varies. All 26 Member States assessed

include nature based solutions as measures (including Natural Water Retention Measures-

NWRM to mitigate flooding) in some or all of their FRMPs, either as projects or as

Bulgaria, Poland and Sweden.

Low, moderate, high, very high or critical priority.

An assessment of the progress made towards the achievement of the objectives is a requirement for the 2

FRMPs.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

preparatory studies. Despite insurance not being mentioned in the FD, in more than half of the

26 Member States assessed at least some FRMPs related measures are foreseen, including

awareness raising on insurance schemes.

Financing of measures

Estimates of the costs of flood measures were made available by about half of the Member

States assessed, though in many cases this information does not cover all FRMPs or all

measures. For the Member States that provided (mostly partial) cost estimates, the numbers

vary: EUR 19 million in one case, EUR 2.8 billion in another. A number of FRMPs indicated

that cost estimates would be reviewed during the implementation of the measures.

In 23 of the 26 Member States, most of the FRMPs assessed identified funding sources,

however, in many cases with only a generic reference, that is, identifying possible funding

mechanisms rather than making budgetary commitments. For instance, in 14 Member States,

the Cohesion Funds were indicated as a source.

Use of cost and benefit analysis

A majority of the Member States assessed, 19 of 26, have made some analysis of costs and

benefits of their measures. Amongst the 19, fewer, 11 Member States out of the 26, used a

cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in all UoMs assessed. A further five of the 19 Member States

indicated the use of CBA for some of their FRMPs. When looking at the 19 Member States

where a CBA (or an alternative method) was indicated, more than one third

–

seven Member

States

–

reported that it was used for all measures in at least some UoMs. Five Member

States indicated that a CBA was only used for structural measures

. Further, across the 19

Member States that applied some form of analysis of costs and benefits, twelve provided clear

information of the methodology used. In nearly all these cases, a national approach was

developed.

Links between FRMPs and River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs)

The development of RBMPs under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and of FRMPs

under the FD are elements of integrated river basin management. The two processes should

therefore use the potential for synergies and mutual benefits. Although in nearly all Member

Austria, Finland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.

Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary and Slovenia.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

States assessed, separate FRMPs and RBMPs were prepared

(very often however by the

same authority), 21 out of 26 Member States make explicit reference to coordination with the

environmental objectives set out in Article 4 of the WFD in all or at least some UoMs. On the

other hand, in over half of Member States, the objectives of the FD were considered in the

preparation of the RBMPs, according to the reporting of RBMPs under the WFD.

Consideration of the likely impacts of climate change

From the FRMPs assessed, 24 of the 26 Member States considered at least some aspects of

climate change and ten provided strong evidence that climate change impacts were considered.

14 Member States discussed future climate change scenarios in their FRMPs. Among those

which discussed climate scenarios, the time frame presented in the Plans varies. Scenarios for

2050 are seen in about half, and scenarios for 2100 are also cited in about half.

Less than half of the FRMPs assessed refer to the national adaptation strategies prepared by

Member States under the EU Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. In about a third of Member

States all FRMPs assessed referred to such national strategies

; in a further few Member

States some, but not all FRMPs assessed, had such references

International coordination within the framework of the Floods Directive

Article 8 of the FD calls for Member States to coordinate their flood risk management

practices in transboundary River Basins (RBs), including with third countries, and, in

solidarity, not to undertake measures that would increase the flood risk in neighbouring

countries. Two large groups of RBs can be distinguished: (1) transboundary RBs where a

formal international agreement and an international coordinating body exists

, as well as an

international FRMP (iFRMP) was produced; (2) transboundary RBs where at least one of these

three elements is absent. It is clear that the presence of a coordinating body, ideally a river

commission, provides a strong impetus to the process. Generally, for RBs benefiting from a

river commission, permanent working groups have been set up, and in all cases the

development of the iFRMP was done in consultation with the iRBMP. Common objectives for

flood risk management were established at the international level and for almost all a limited

number of joint coordinated measures were defined. Public consultation was performed and a

joint communication strategy was put in place in some of the basins that have a river

Four Member States presented some form of combined FRMP/RBMP, three of these for the whole country

(Croatia, Lithuania and Malta) and one partly (Belgium for the Brussels and Flanders regions).

Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Croatia, Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia.

Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Such as the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) or the International

Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR).

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

commission. Likewise, consideration of climate change is more developed there. The

appreciation of the upstream and downstream effects, at the basin scale, of measures that are

geographically not in the vicinity of national borders is an area with room for development.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Introduction

While many Member States already had national policies to address floods, most of Europe’s

River Basins (RBs) are shared by more than one country. Before the Floods Directive (FD)

was put in place, European Union (EU) policy to tackle flooding mainly focused on emergency

response and instruments that partially addressed or contributed to the management of flood

risk. The Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM)

was developed in 2001 to facilitate the

mobilization of support and assistance in the event of major emergencies, including floods. In

addition, following the 2002 floods in central Europe, the European Union Solidarity Fund

(EUSF)

was created as a specific instrument for granting rapid financial assistance directly

after a major disaster to help the affected areas to return to living conditions that are as normal

as possible.

Whereas these instruments can provide relief to affected populations, they are not flood-

specific and do not address the root causes of floods, nor are focused on preventing damage

from floods. Consequently, there was scope for targeted and concerted action at European level

that would result in better management of flood risks; this realisation led to the introduction of

the FD in 2007.

This document provides an overview of the first Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs)

produced by EU Member States and reported to the European Commission under the FD. 26

Member States are discussed

. The Plans operationally cover the period 2016-2021. Whereas

establishing the Plans is a legal obligation under the Directive, the envisaged function of the

Plans should primarily be that of a management tool, employed for the reduction of potential

adverse consequences from significant flooding. In this sense, the recommendations put

forward in the EU overview and the individual Member State assessments aim at strengthening

flood risk management in the EU on the basis of good practice as it emerges from the

implementation of the FD by the Member States themselves.

Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and

management of flood risks, OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27–34,

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/civil-protection/mechanism_en

https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/solidarity-fund/

The Republic of Ireland and Greece are not included due to very late reporting.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

The European Commission’s individual Member State assessment reports (published in

parallel) provide relevant background detail to the present EU overview

. Together they

should support and improve the implementation of the FD. The present document and its

annexes should therefore facilitate the identification of good practice, as well as the reflection

on areas of flood risk management that require improvement

, through further development, in

subsequent cycles of implementation of the Directive

Next to the equivalent one for the Water Framework Directive (WFD)

, this document

underpins the implementation report from the European Commission to the European

Parliament and the Council of the EU foreseen in Articles 18 of the WFD and 16 of the FD.

1.1.

Rationale for continued action at the EU level

While floods are a natural phenomenon, human choices, historic and still widespread today,

have a significant effect on their occurrence and impacts. Locating assets within floodplains or

near the coast, the reduction of water-retaining surfaces, interventions to water courses or their

surroundings and man-instigated climate change, all contribute to an increase in the likelihood

and adverse impacts of flood events. Since some time already there is evidence that Europe is

subjected to an increasing number of large, damaging floods. Figure 1 below shows that the

number of large flood events over a 25-year period increased and it is clear from the recently

prepared EU Overview of Risks

that floods remain the most common risk for Europe: 27 out

of 28 Member States included floods as a main risk in their national risk assessments submitted

to the European Commission under the UCPM

The Member States assessment reports reflect the situation as reported by each Member State to the European

Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to FRMPs prepared earlier. The situation in the Member State

may have altered since then.

See also Special report no 25/2018 from the European

Court of Auditors: “Floods

Directive: progress in

assessing

risks,

while

planning

and

implementation

need

improve”,

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=47211

There is no “sunset clause” in the Floods Directive.

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a

framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73,

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/En/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060

Commission Staff Working Document

–

Overview of natural and man-made disaster risks the European Union

may face{SWD (2017)176 final};

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/285d038f-

b543-11e7-837e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

In November 2017, the European Commission proposed to strengthen the EU Civil Protection Mechanism by

encouraging a stronger collective European response with the development of a reserve capacity (known as

‘rescEU’) to complement national

capacities, and by stepping up disaster prevention and preparedness in

Participating States to the Mechanism (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6766_en.htm).

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Figure 1

Numbers of large floods in Europe each year during 1985–2009, based on

Dartmouth Flood Observatory records

Source: Zbigniew W.

Kundzewicz, Iwona Pińskwar & G. Robert Brakenridge (2012): Large floods in

Europe, 1985–2009, Hydrological Sciences Journal,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2012.745082

Estimates indicate that coastal and inland floods killed more than 2 000 people and affected 8.7

million in the period 1991-2015

. Most noticeable were the catastrophic floods in the summer

of 2002 in the Danube and Elbe RBs, but also the 2013 summer flooding in central and south

east Europe.

Economic losses caused by floods can be devastating, including damages to private housing,

monuments, transport or energy infrastructure and various economic sectors. In addition to

economic, social (including health) and cultural heritage damage, floods often have severe

environmental consequences too, affecting terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, e.g. through

pollution. Potential cascading effects of a flood event may include the loss of vital

infrastructure, the outbreak of epidemic or epizootic events, damage to industrial facilities

causing the release of chemical or radioactive substances. Clearly hence implementing the FD

contributes also to the implementation of policies other than flood risk management, e.g. the

WFD.

Next to socioeconomic change, human induced climate change may increase the scale and

EEA Report

No 15/2017, “Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Enhancing

coherence of the knowledge base, policies and practices” Available at:

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-change-adaptation-and-disaster

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

frequency of floods in many parts of Europe. The Joint Research Centre of the European

Commission found that even a 2°C rise in global temperature is still expected to lead to a

significant increase in floods and droughts in many regions of Europe.

Figure 2

Projections of future floods in Europe under a +2°C global warming

–

100

year return period

Source: Roudier, P., Andersson, J.C.M., Donnelly, C. et al. Climatic Change (2016): Projections of

future floods and hydrological droughts in Europe under a +2°C global warming. 135: 341.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1570-4.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-015-1570-4

Under the no-adaptation scenario (i.e. assuming continuation of the current protection against

river floods up to a current 100-year event), EU damages from the combined effect of climate

and socioeconomic changes are projected to rise from EUR 6.9 billion/year to EUR 20.4

billion/year by the 2020s, EUR 45.9 billion/year by the 2050s, and EUR 97.9 billion/year by

the 2080s.

Considering these numbers, the importance of collecting accurate and consistent disaster loss

data cannot be overstressed. However, disaster loss data remains an area requiring

improvement, EU Member States included. Therefore, one of the actions listed in the

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/more-intense-floods-and-droughts-europe

Rojas et al. (2013) Climate change and river floods in the EU: Socio-economic consequences and the costs and

benefits of adaptation, Global Environmental Change 23, 1737–1751 available at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013001416#

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

“RescEU” Communication

is for Member States and the European Commission to promote a

more systematic collection and dissemination of loss data. The European Commission, through

its Joint Research Centre, has launched the Risk Data Hub (RDH)

, expected to be the point of

reference for curated EU-wide risk data, either through hosting relevant datasets or through

linking to national platforms. The RDH integrates, among other tools, the European Flood

Awareness System (EFAS)

. Member States can also input their own disaster loss datasets.

Floods are only one of the threats our societies are faced with next to other disaster risks

(natural or man-made), the fight against crime and terrorism, border security. These threats

involve issues such as chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, crisis

management, resilience etc. A range of research, technological developments as well as

capacity-building, training and education projects, are striving to support the implementation

of these policies.

However, the extent of the policy framework and the wide scope of supporting initiatives often

lead to a lack of awareness about policies and/or project outputs by the “users”

. In response

to needs expressed by different actors for improving exchanges of information and build up

synergies among different types of activities (research, capacity-building, education and

training, a “Community

of Users on Secure, Safe and Resilient Societies”

was introduced by

the European Commission in 2014 and has since become a recognized mechanism to exchange

information both within the EU institutions and intergovernmental agencies and the many

different actors involved in safety and security risk management.

Worldwide, beside windstorms, floods are the most frequent cause of natural hazard losses:

about a third of all reported events and a third of the economic losses resulting from natural

catastrophes are attributable to floods.

Disaster risk management aspects are underlined as

critical to poverty reduction and enablers of sustainable development in the EU's consensus on

development and contribute

towards meeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Indeed, flooding is directly relevant to two at least SDG goals: No 11 and No 13 on

Sustainable Cities and Communities and Climate Action respectively. Work at the

https://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/eu_disaster_management_rescue.pdf

As part of the European Commission’s Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre (DRMKC) for

strengthening the interface between science and policy,

https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/partnership/Scientific-

Partnerships/Risk-Data-Hub#documents/789/list

https://www.efas.eu/

Namely policy makers (at EU/national level), scientists (researchers/academics), industry (incl. SMEs),

practitioners (e.g. first responders), and civil society (NGOs, general public, city networks etc.)

https://www.securityresearch-cou.eu/node/5

https://www.munichre.com/touch/naturalhazards/en/naturalhazards/hydrological-

hazards/flood/flood/index.html

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

international level on disaster risk management is under the Sendai Framework for disaster risk

reduction 2015-2030, adopted by United Nations (UN) Member States at the third UN world

conference on disaster risk reduction in March 2015 and endorsed by the UN General

Assembly. The European Commission launched an Action Plan in 2016 to support reaching

the Sendai objectives

and the FD is one of its contributing elements.

Commission Staff Working Document, Brussels, 17.6.2016, SWD(2016) 205 final/2, Action Plan on the Sendai

Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, A disaster risk-informed approach for all EU policies;

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/1_en_document_travail_service_part1_v2.pdf

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

2.1.

Main elements of the Floods Directive

The objectives and key provisions of the Floods Directive

Given the clear need for a targeted and coordinated approach at EU level towards flood risk

reduction, the FD was proposed as an instrument by the European Commission on 18 January

2006 and entered into force on 26 November 2007. The purpose of the Directive is to

‘…establish

a framework for the assessment and management of flood risks, aiming at the

reduction of the adverse consequences for human health, the environment, cultural heritage

and economic activity associated with floods…’

(Article 1)

After transposition into national law and the necessary governance arrangements, that

principally consisted of identifying UoMs

and Competent Authorities (CA), the Directive

required Member States to make, by December 2011, preliminary assessments of flood risk

(PFRA) leading to the identification of any areas that are at significant risk of flooding. By

December 2013, the Member States were to have prepared FHRMs showing how far floods

might extend, the depths or levels of floodwaters and the impacts that there might be on human

health, the economy, environment and cultural heritage. The Directive also requires that the

assessment of flood risk and associated mapping must be coordinated between the Member

States sharing RBs that cross national boundaries. For the third major step in the risk

management cycle, the Directive calls on Member States to prepare FRMPs, which were to be

completed and published by December 2015. Building on the prior steps, the FRMPs should

detail appropriate objectives and identify measures for achieving these objectives.

The following table provides an overview of the risk management cycle as defined by the FD.

The UoM in most Member States coincide with the WFD’s RBDs.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Table 1

Timetable for the implementation of the Floods Directive (2

cycle focus)

Deadline for

Subject

Deadline for

completion

cycle)

notification/reporting

(following completion

from the part of the

MS)

26.11.2009

cycle

implementation

Main

reference

Transposition and

notification to the

Commission

Competent Authorities and

Units of Management if

different from WFD and

notification to the

Commission

Transitional measures (not

relevant in the 2 cycle)

Preliminary Flood Risk

Assessment-PFRAs/APSFRs

26.11.2009

Article 17

26.05.2010

3 months after

any changes

Article 3(2)

(and Annex 1

WFD)

22.12.2010

Article 13

22.12.2011

22.03.2012

22.03.19, every

6 years

thereafter

Articles 4 & 5,

Article 15

Flood Hazard and Risk

Maps-FHRMs

22.12.2013

22.03.2014

22.03.20, every

6 years

thereafter

Article 6,

Article 15

Flood Risk Management

Plans-FRMPs

22.12.2015

22.03.2016

22.03.22, every

6 years

thereafter

Article 7,

Article 15

Commission’s first

implementation report

Commission’s second

implementation report

22.12.2018

Every 6 years

Article 16

22.12.2024

Every 6 years

Article 16

There are links between the purpose and approach to flood risk management prescribed by the

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

FD and the achievement of water quality objectives under the WFD. The FD states in its

preamble that the implementation of the two Directives should ‘…use

the mutual potential for

common synergies and benefits...’

(point 17 of the preamble). At the same time, Article 1 of

the WFD says that the purpose of the Directive

“…is to establish a framework for the

protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater

which:

[inter alia]

… (e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts”…

The FD is in almost all Member States implemented at the level of the River Basin Districts

(RBDs) designated under the WFD and the CA responsible for the WFD are generally also

responsible for flood risk management under the FD (except where other UoM and CA are

designated by Member States). The implementation cycles and reporting mechanisms of the

two Directives are synchronized: the first set of FRMPs due in December 2015 should have

been coordinated with the second RBMPs under the WFD (and possibly also integrated into),

which were also due in December 2015. The public information and consultation mechanisms

of the WFD can furthermore be utilised

Measures

can contribute to both Directives’ ends. From a design and impact point of view,

NWRM

are an example of measures that can contribute simultaneously to the achievement of

objectives under the WFD and the FD by strengthening and preserving the natural retention

and storage capacity of aquifers, soils and ecosystems

. At the same time, plans for new flood

protection infrastructure need to be assessed in terms of potential impacts on the achievement

of good status under the WFD.

2.2.

The European Commission’s 2015

implementation report

In accordance with Article 18(4) of the WFD the European Commission published in 2015 an

interim report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of the

Commission Staff working document SWD(2015) 51, final, Report on the progress in implementation of the

FD, Accompanying the Document ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the

Council

– The WFD and the FD: Actions towards the ‘good status’ of EU water and to reduce flood

risks.

Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-

framework/pdf/4th_report/CSWD%20Report%20on%20the%20FD%20.pdf

www.nwrm.eu

COM(2015) 120 final, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

–

The WFD and the FD: Actions towards the ‘good status’ of EU water and to reduce flood risks.

Available at:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0120

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

WFD, which also discussed the FD

and included an overview of the first steps in its

implementation.

This report found that most Member States had developed new preliminary flood risk

assessments, while few used existing assessments or relied on a combination of new and

existing ones. Criteria for defining significant floods and methods for quantifying impacts were

diverse across Member States and, in some cases, not systematically specified. Only one third

of Member States explicitly considered climate and long-term socio-economic changes in their

assessment of flood risk at the start of the decade. Despite these gaps, the report recognised

that for the first time, all Member States acted together under the same policy framework to

prevent or reduce social, economic and environmental damage from flood risk. The flood

hazard maps and flood risk maps produced are a tool for decision makers and authorities to

decide on, visualise, communicate (inter alia to the public) and implement measures aimed at

reducing flood risks in an effective and sustainable way for water and the society. In addition,

the report indicated that the FD has served as a strong incentive for the Member States to focus

on prevention and awareness actions for flood risk management, in addition to protection

measures.

2.3

The Common Implementation Strategy

Implementation of the WFD and the FD has been supported since May 2001 by informal co-

operation under the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS)

, led by Water Directors of

Member States and the European Commission, with participation from relevant stakeholders.

The CIS has successfully delivered thirty-six guidance documents; served as a valuable

platform for exchange of experience and best practice on implementation among Member

States, but also for exploring common issues of concern and joint responses. All documents

produced under the CIS are made public on CIRCABC

, a collaborative platform. Within the

CIS, it is the Working Group on Floods (CIS-WG F) that primarily deals with issues pertaining

to the implementation of the FD.

COM(2015) 120 final, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

–

The WFD and the FD: Actions towards the ‘good status’ of EU water and to reduce flood risks.

Available at:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0120

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/3644e20b-f5c5-46de-9d2f-3d9efb965fac

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Approach to the Assessment of the Flood Risk Management

Plans

After each of the two main steps of the flood risk management cycle defined by the FD, the

European Commission produced assessments of the Member States’ PFRAs and FHRMs. The

present document bases itself on the assessment of the third and final step of the flood risk

management cycle, the FRMPs. The document reflects firstly an assessment of the national (or

sub-national) FRMPs prepared by Member States (in Part A of this document) and secondly,

an assessment of international cooperation among Member States and with third countries in

International River Basin Districts (iRBDs)/international Units of Management-iUoMs (in Part

B of this document).

The assessment of Member States FRMPs drew on mainly two sources: (1) Member State

reporting to the European Commission under the FD (covering all FRMPs)

and (2)

depending on the number of FRMPs established in each MS either on all FRMPs, or on a

representative sample

. Member States were requested

to report summaries of the key

elements of their FRMPs. They were for example requested to report on measures taken under

their FRMPs, thereby providing data including the location, costs, priority, responsible for the

implementation authorities.

Member States reported to the Water Information System for Europe (WISE,

https://water.europa.eu/)

via the

European Environment Agency (EEA)’s ReportNet infrastructure and its Common Data Repository (CDR):

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ReportekEngine/searchdataflow?dataflow_uris=http%3A%2F%2Frod.eionet.europ

a.eu%2Fobligations%2F603&years%3Aint%3Aignore_empty=&partofyear=&reportingdate_start%3Adate%3

Aignore_empty=&reportingdate_end%3Adate%3Aignore_empty=&country=&release_status=released&sort_

on=reportingdate&sort_order=reverse&batch_size The format for reporting was jointly elaborated by the

Member States and the European Commission as part of a collaborative process called the “Common

Implementation Strategy”.

Data must be reported in a clear and consistent way by all Member States. The assessment of the FRMPs was

based on a common assessment template used for all Member States. The format for reporting was jointly

elaborated by the Member States and the European Commission as part of a collaborative process called the

“Common Implementation Strategy”:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm

Whereas a key role of the Commission is to check compliance with EU legislation, the Commission also seeks

information to allow it to determine whether existing policies are adequate. It also requires certain information

to create a European-wide picture to inform the public.

This report reflects the situation as reported by each Member State to the European Commission in 2016 or

2017 and with reference to FRMPs prepared earlier. The situation in the MSs may have altered since then.

European Commission, Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC): Guidance Document No. 29

–

compilation of reporting sheets adopted by Water Directors CIS for the WFD(2000/60/EC), Technical Report

2013-071, 2013. Available at:

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/acbcd98a-9540-480e-a876-

420b7de64eba/Floods%20Reporting%20guidance%20-%20final_with%20revised%20paragraph%204.2.3.pdf

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

The overview in Part A of this document is based on the Member States reports. As two

Member States had not reported their FRMPs at the time of the assessment, the assessment of

FRMPs is based on 26 Member States

It should be noted that up to five FRMPs were assessed in each Member State. The FRMPs for

assessment were chosen based on several criteria: first, to capture the variety of methods used

(for example in Member States with a decentralised structure where regions or localities

followed different approaches); second, to capture different types of flood sources; and third,

to include UoMs that are part of larger transboundary units. Annex 1 provides the list of

FRMPs assessed.

All chapters of Part A on national FRMPs indicate noteworthy good practices and areas for

further development for all Member States (with the exception of the chapter on governance).

Further, this overview highlights in boxes throughout the document a range of good practice

examples collectively covering all Member States: These examples are intended to be

illustrative and, owing to the diversity of flood risk Member States are faced with, the

examples may or may not serve as good practice suitable for replication elsewhere. For further

information and to gain a better appreciation of the context, the individual Member State

assessment reports should be visited.

The assessment for international coordination under the FD (Part B) drew on Member States

reporting, together with national FRMPs as well as on international FRMPs (iFRMP) for those

iRBD where iFRMPs were prepared (for example the Danube or the Rhine basins). The

assessment covered a total of 27 international basins, including those with lower levels of

cooperation, where no iFRMP was prepared.

Greece and the Republic of Ireland had not reported in time to be included in this assessment. Spain had

reported 17 of 25 FRMPs at the time of the assessment, which was carried out on this basis. The Republic of

Ireland reported in May 2018 and Greece reported

in October/November 2018. A FRMP for Spain’s Canary

Islands was not reported as of yet.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Part A. Assessment of Member State Flood Risk Management

Plans

Governance of Flood Risk Management

This chapter covers several issues related to the governance of flood risk management and of

FRMPs. It firstly provides an overview of the number of UoMs and Areas of Potential

Significant Flood Risk (APSFRs) designated by Member States and then considers the

administrative level (local, regional or national) at which the Plans were prepared. The chapter

then provides information on the level that the Plans were adopted at and discusses their legal

status. The following section reviews the use of SEA procedures. The chapter proceeds to

present an overview of Member States reporting of the FRMPs, and finally it considers links

between the FRMPs and flood management plans that preceded the introduction of the FD.

4.1.

Administrative level for the preparation of FRMPs

Member States have designated a total of 209 UoMs for the implementation of the FD. Within

these UoMs, Member States identified 7.906 APSFRs

(the total as reported for the FRMP

assessment

The following table shows the number of UoMs and APSFRs reported per Member State.

APSFRs were first reported at the PFRA stage; some Member States updated their numbers

later during the risk management cycle, which for some coincided with reporting their FHRMs

or FRMPs. A 4% increase in the number of APSFRs took place between 2011 and 2015 (see

Table 2 below).

In the majority of the Member States the UoMs correspond to the RBDs under the WFD. Italy

is one exception as it follows the water governance scheme in place before the introduction of

the WFD and consequently its UoMs cover different types of basins (national, interregional

and regional basins): Italy has designated 47 UoMs but only 8 RBDs. Romania is another case,

with 12 UoMs but only one RBD.

Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands applied Article 13(1)(b) as a transitional measure in the 1

cycle of

implementation of the FD and did not undertake a PFRA/identify APSFRs under the FD.

7 594 APSFRs were reported at the time of the PFRA.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Table 2

Number of UoMs and APSFRs reported

APSFRs

(as reported at

FRMP stage, 2015)

391

116

269

841

1 306

122

2 976

129

268

399

559

281

7 906

399

383

281

7 594

268

Total

UoMs

209

APSFRs

(as reported at

PFRA stage, 2011)

391

116

269

809

1 229

146

2 976

129

Sources: Member States reporting to WISE. European Commission, European Overview Assessment of

Member States’ reports on PFRA and Identification of Areas of Potentially Significant Flood

Risk: Final report, Figure 9 (prepared by WRc and partners), September 2015.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/EU%20PFRA%20Overvie

w%20Report.pdf

Note: the table does not include either Greece (124 APSFRs reported at the PFRA stage), nor the

Republic of Ireland (305 APSFRs), as these two Member States did not report in time for the

FRMP assessment.

There have been changes in Spain’s APSFRs. The updated total will be 1 342 APSFRs.

France noted that one APSFR was missing in the reporting for APSFRs (2012-2014). It was added in the update

of the reporting of FHRMs in May 2017. It was therefore included in the count in the table above.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

According to the Directive, Member States should prepare one FRMP for each RBD or UoM

that contain APSFRs, or a set of FRMPs coordinated at the level of the RBD (Article 8.1). All

FRMPs identify the level at which the planned, ongoing or executed measures take place.

Member States have taken a variety of different approaches to the preparation of their FRMPs

(see Table 3 below).

Table 3

Number of FRMPs per Member State and their geographical coverage

National

~30

9 (sub-basin)

23 (sub-basin)

18 (APSFR)

(see Notes)

20 (municipal)

16 (APSFRs)

Regional

UoM/RBD

Sub-basin or

Municipal

Sources: Member States reporting and FRMPs.

Notes: The Czech Republic prepared both UoM-level and sub-basin FRMPs (the latter were not

reported to WISE, nor assessed). Italy prepared FRMPs at UoM level and at the level of

RBDs that comprise several UoMs; the estimate is made based on the links to FRMPs

reported to WISE at the time of the assessment. Spain had reported 17 out of 25 FRMPs at the

time of assessment.

Half of Member States assessed

–

13 out of 26

–

prepared an FRMP for each UoM where

APSFRs were identified. Six Member States, however, prepared a single FRMP at national

level covering all UoMs, and a further five Member States chose to develop Plans at a lower

level, generally for sub-basins within an UoM. In Slovakia, the FRMPs prepared at the UoM

level include sub-plans for sub-basins of the UoM. Germany and Italy followed a mixed

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

approach where some Plans are prepared at regional/Laender level and others at UoM level; in

Denmark municipalities elaborated municipal FRMPs which were summarised in FRMPs at

UoM level. In Finland and Sweden, FRMPs were prepared for individual APSFRs. In England

and Northern Ireland, most plans are prepared at the UoM level, but in Scotland and Wales

they are prepared at a lower level, for 14 Local Districts (Scotland) and eight FRMPs at the

level of the Lead Local Flood Authorities (Wales).

A few Member States prepared FRMPs also for UoMs without APSFRs. One example is

Estonia: an FRMP was developed for the Koiva UoM (EE3). Even though no APSFRs had

been identified, national legislation called for an FRMP for each UoM, and the Koiva FRMP

aims to avoid risks from potential floods in the future, with measures to improve the natural

water retention capacities of the landscape (potentially also serving as a baseline for future

action). In the United Kingdom as well, FRMPs were prepared for several UoMs such as

Northumbria (UK03) that did not contain APSFRs. Austria’s FRMP, prepared

at national level,

covers all three UoMs including the Elbe (AT5000), which does not contain APSFRs, though

no measures are planned there.

In total, as shown in Table3, over 260 FRMPs were prepared across the 26 Member States

4.2.

Adoption and legal status of the FRMPs

The European Commission’s 2012 assessment of the first RBMPs noted that their legal status

varied across Member States. Key factors in determining legal status included the role of the

Plans in the national hierarchy of policy and legal acts, the adopting authority and the

procedure for adoption. The legal ‘effect’ of the plans on other administrative acts, such as

permits and spatial planning instruments, would also vary. A similar analysis was carried out

for the 1

FRMPs and is detailed below.

For nearly all Member States, information was available, either in the FRMPs or from other

sources, on the legal status of the Plans (see Table 4). In at least eleven Member States, the

FRMPs were approved at the level of national government. In Hungary, for example, the

government adopted the national FRMP in March 2016 (via Decree 1146/2016).

In five Member States, the FRMPs were adopted by the Ministry for Environment: this was for

instance the case in Latvia, where the Minister of Environmental Protection and Regional

Development adopted the FRMP for the Daugava UoM (LVDUBA) in November 2015 and

In addition to these, Greece prepared 15 FRMPs and the Republic of Ireland 29.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

the other three FRMPs the following month. In Finland, the Ministry for Agriculture and

Forestry, responsible for water management, approved the FRMPs in December 2015. In the

Netherlands, the FRMPs are part of the National Water Plan (2016-2021), which was approved

by the (at that time) Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment and the Ministry of Economic

Affairs.

Authorities at UoM/RBD level approved the Plans in France and Italy. In mainland France, the

basin prefects approved the Plans. In Italy, the RBD authorities adopted the FRMPs in March

2016 and the national government followed in February 2017. In Belgium, the FRMPs were

approved by the three regions (Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia); in Portugal, while the plans

for mainland UoMs were approved at national level, those for the autonomous regions of

Azores and Madeira were approved by the regional governments. In Denmark, plans were

prepared at municipal level and approved by municipal councils. Two overarching FRMPs

were prepared in Denmark, however, these were not approved at national government level.

Table 4

Legal adoption of the FRMPs

National

Govern

ment

Ministry

Environ

ment

Other

Ministry

UoM/

RBD

Regions

Local

Date of adoption



March 2016

Brussels: January 2017

Flanders: December 2015

Wallonia: March 2016

December 2016

December 2015







January 2016

January and April 2016;

March 2018 **

December 2015

Late 2015 **

July 2016

March 2016

RBD authorities: March

2016; Council of Ministers:

February 2017

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

National

Govern

ment

Ministry

Environ

ment

Other

Ministry

UoM/

RBD

Regions

Local

Date of adoption











March 2018

November and December

2015 **

February 2016

December 2015

October, November

December 2016 **

and

September and October

2016, 27 October 2017 **

December 2016

December 2015

July 2017

December 2015

December 2015 for NI,

Scotland and Wales; March

2016 for England

Sources: Member State reporting, FRMPs.

Notes: In Finland, the ‘other ministry’ refers to the Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, responsible

for water management. In the Netherlands, the ‘other ministry’ is the Ministry of Economic

Affairs

* In Lithuania, the Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023 was approved by the

Government in February 2017 and the Action Plan of Water Sector Development Programme

2017-2023 by the Minister of Environment and Minister of Agriculture in May 2017: Both

documents refer to and are partly based on the national FRMP.

** In Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Latvia and Portugal, the date of adoption varies

across the FRMPs.

For almost all the Member States the FRMPs have been officially adopted, giving them legal

status. A few of the FRMPs themselves provide information on their legal weight (see the box

below for France).

Box 1 - The legal effect of the FRMPs

France,

the FRMP for the Rhône-Méditerranée UoM (FRD) contains a section on the legal weight of

the

plan, indicating that with the FRMP’s approval, other plans and administrative documents need to

be updated within three years to be compatible with its provisions. This section refers to plans at several

levels, including the

Schémas de cohérence territoriale

(SCoTs, Schemas for territorial coherence),

plans covering several municipalities, and to the

plans locals d’urbanisme

(PLUs) and

plans locals

d’urbanisme intercommunal

(PLUIs), the main local planning documents. The FRMP also delineates

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

the scope of the FRMP compared to the RBMP for the Rhône-Méditerranée.

4.3.

Strategic Environmental Assessments

An SEA is mandatory for plans/programmes which:



are prepared for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste/

water management, telecommunications, tourism, town & country planning or land

use and which set the framework for future development consent of projects listed

in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive, or



have been determined to require an assessment under the Habitats Directive.

In 23 of the 26 Member States, it is clear that the FRMPs underwent an SEA in at least some

UoMs. For example, an SEA is carried out for only some Swedish and French FRMPs. In

Malta, on the other hand, an SEA screening was carried out, and on the basis of this, there was

no full SEA undertaken on the Maltese FRMP. No information was found on SEA procedures

in Denmark and Estonia; however, this may reflect an omission to provide information rather

than the lack of an SEA procedure.

In some Member States, including Luxembourg, Latvia, Croatia, Cyprus and Portugal, the

SEAs of the FRMPs were conducted together with the SEAs of the RBMPs and the results

were reported in one of the two documents. In the Netherlands, the SEA was carried out on the

National Water Plan (2016-2021), which includes the draft FRMPs.

The FRMPs in several Member States provide information on the SEA procedure. For

example, in Bulgaria, draft results of the SEA procedures were open for public consultation at

the same time as the FRMPs, so both drafts were discussed together. All four Bulgarian

FRMPs provide information about the conclusions of the SEA procedures. In Poland, a

stepwise scheme of public consultation and participation in the SEA procedure for the FRMP

project was used. This gave interested parties the opportunity to participate in both the process

of developing FRMP measures and in the SEA process. The FRMP for Croatia indicates that

Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the

effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32001L0042

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

neighbouring Member States and third countries were invited to provide comments as part of

the SEA procedure.

4.4.

Overview of Member State reporting of the FRMPs

MS were required to report to the European Commission on their first FRMPs by 22 March

2016. Half of EU’s 28 Member States reported at least some of the FRMPs by that date

(see

Table 5 below). By July 2017, all Member States had reported except for Ireland, which

reported in May 2018

, and Greece, which published the FRMPs in the official gazette in July

2018

and reported in October/November 2018.

Table 5

Member State reporting of the FRMPs to WISE

Reporting to WISE

Updates

March 2016

March 2016 (February 2017 for one UoM)

December 2016

September 2016

September 2016 (January 2017 for XML)

March 2016 (Sept 2017 national FRMP)

March 2016

May 2016

March 2016

October/November 2018

March 2016

May 2018

March 2016

March 2016 (June 2016 FRMPs)

July 2017

October 2016 (June 2017 XML)

October 2016 (Dec 2017 XML)

March 2016

October 2016

Oct 2016 (March 2017 XML)

February 2017

March 2016

July 2016

January 2018 (one UoM)

April 2017

September 217

June 2016

August 2016

December 2016

June 2017

http://www.floodinfo.ie/about_floodplans/

http://floods.ypeka.gr/index.php/sxedia-diaxeirisis

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Reporting to WISE

August 2017

February-April 2016

(March-April 2018 for one UoM)

March 2016

Updates

May 2017

Source: Member State reporting.

4.5.

Links to previous plans

As noted earlier, some Member States have had long-standing policies to address flood risks.

In these Member States, the FRMPs follow and build on previous plans to address flood risks.

In Italy, for example, the regions and some RBs had prepared Plans for Hydrogeological Status

(Piani

di Assetto Idrogeologico,

PAIs) to address hydrogeological risks including different

types of flooding as well as landslides related to heavy rainfall. Italy used information from

these earlier plans instead of undertaking a PFRA in the first cycle. In the Netherlands, well-

known for its efforts to address flood risks from the sea, the FRMPs follow a set of major

government initiatives taken over the previous decade (see the box below). The Dutch FRMPs

include measures taken under other plans and programmes. This is the case for FRMPs in a

few other countries as well: for example, in Croatia, the FRMP’s infrastructure measures are

based on a prior water infrastructure plan

Member States may decide

–

under Article 13(3) of the FD

–

to make use of earlier FRMPs

(i.e. finalised before December 2010) instead of preparing 1

cycle FRMPs, provided that their

content is equivalent to the requirements of Article 7 of the Directive. The assessment found

application of Article 13(3) in only one Member State, for a small share of the German

FRMPs.

Box 2 - Previous flood risk initiatives

In the

Netherlands,

the four FRMPs refer to and build on recent and ongoing national programmes and

legislation for flood risk management. These include the 2007 Room for the River Programme

(Ruimte

voor de Rivier)

to restore flood plains and other natural features as measures against flooding,

now nearing completion. Another key initiative has been the Delta Programme

(first launched in 2008

Specifically, the Multi-annual Program for the Construction of Water Structures for Regulation and Protection

and Structures for Amelioration, for 2013-2021:

http://www.voda.hr/hr/visegodisnji-programi-gradnje

https://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/english/

https://www.government.nl/topics/delta-programme/introduction-to-the-delta-programme

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

and most recently updated in 2017) to protect against flooding and secure freshwater resources in the

face of expected climate change impacts. Related to the Delta Programme, the Netherlands took several

Delta Decisions

(proposed in 2014 and adopted in the 2015 Delta Programme): the Decision for

Water Safety, for example, states that by 2050, dykes and dunes should provide sufficient protection so

that the risk of fatalities is no higher than 1 in 100,000 citizens per year.

https://english.deltacommissaris.nl/delta-programme/delta-decisions

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Public information and consultation

According to Article 1 of the 1998 Aarhus Convention “In

order to contribute to the protection

of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment

adequate to his or her health and well-being, each Party shall guarantee the rights of access to

information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental

matters…”

Directive 2003/35/EC

is providing for public participation in respect to the

drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment with the objective to

contribute to the implementation of the obligations arising under the Århus Convention.

Provisions for public participation in environmental decision-making are to be found in a

number of other environmental Directives, including the WFD and the FD.

Article 10(1) of the FD states that Member States shall make available to the public the

FRMPs

–

and this was also the case for the previous phases in the flood risk management

cycle, i.e. the preparation of the PFRAs and the FHRMs. Moreover, the active involvement of

interested parties in the production, review and updating of the FRMPs should be encouraged

(Article 10(2)). This chapter reviews the information available in the Member States reporting

and the FRMPs assessed on information provision, public consultation and active stakeholder

involvement

. Three distinct facets are discussed: (1) the provision of information to the

public and stakeholders on the consultation itself, and the provision of FRMPs and related

documents; 2) the actual public consultation and consultation methods; and (3) the active

involvement of stakeholders.

Effective public participation should result in adaptations which improve the evidence and

assumptions in the FRMPs, refine the scope of the measures to be taken and increase

stakeholders’ ownership of the plans and commitment to their implementation. This

aspect is

explored by looking at how the plans were reported to have changed as a result of the

consultation.

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32003L0035

The majority of the information presented in this section is taken from the FRMPs. In some cases, Member

States have provided additional information, however, this additional information are only included in the

graphs that follow if evidence was found in documents reported to WISE.

The CIS Guidance Document on Public Participation underlines that active involvement goes beyond

consultation: ‘…it implies that stakeholders are invited to contribute actively to the

process and thus play a

role in advising the competent authorities.’ European Commission, Public Participation in Relation to the

Water Framework Directive, Guidance Document No 8 (of the C), 2003. Available at:

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0fc804ff-5fe6-4874-8e0d-de3e47637a63/Guidance%20No%208%20-

%20Public%20participation%20%28WG%202.9%29.pdf

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

5.1.

Information provision on the consultation process

All of the Member States covered in the assessment have used a variety of information

channels for communicating with the public and stakeholders on the FRMPs.

Figure 3

Mechanisms to inform the public and stakeholders

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

The FRMPs for Austria, Germany and Slovakia explicitly refer to a strategic approach, starting

at the initial phase of development of the FRMP, to provide information about the content and

the preparation process of the Plans (see the box below on Austria). The communication and

information channel that was used the most was the internet, followed by stakeholder meetings

and the use of media such as newspapers, TV and radio (see Figure

above). With regard to

the internet, several Member States set up dedicated websites on floods: one example is

Poland, where the website dedicated to flood protection and to the Plans under development

was updated on an ongoing basis. Surveys and social media platforms were used least.

Romania reported the use of a high number of information channels, followed by Austria,

Belgium, Poland and Portugal, including the internet, public displays, printed thematic

brochures and (online) dialogue platforms. An innovative approach was used in Poland: a film

trailer shown in cinemas was used to reach out to the general public.

www.powodz.gov.pl

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Box 3 - Public information and consultation

Austria,

a broad public information and consultation strategy was followed for the consultation on

the FRMP. Many public relations channels and several dialogue platforms for topics related to water

management were used, such as the Round Table on Water and an internet platform called

"Flussdialog"/River Dialogue, which targeted many different stakeholders as well as the general

population.

In terms of providing the documents for consultation, 24 of the 26 Member States assessed

made all draft FRMPs available via the internet, and two more did so in some of the UoMs

assessed (see Figure 4 below). The second most common method was making paper copies

available in municipal buildings, this was done by less than half of the Member States.

Figure 4

Mechanisms to provide FRMP documents to the public and stakeholders

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

Relatively few Member States provided documents at the offices of competent authorities or

regular exhibitions, and few provided them via direct mailing. (Croatian authorities specifically

noted that printed versions were not distributed due to the large size of the document.) Direct

mailing was used in Poland for all FRMPs; Poland was the Member States which used the

most channels, six, to provide documents. In contrast, several Member States

–

including

Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Lithuania and Latvia

–

chose to work with downloadable documents only.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

A few Member States also indicated that information on the FRMPs was provided also once

they were completed: Slovenia is one example (see the box below).

Box 4 - Informing the public about the final FRMP

After the publication of the final FRMP,

Slovenia

organised workshops with local inhabitants in flood-

risk areas and with local water professionals. In December 2015, there were four workshops for the

basins of Savinja river (at Ljubno ob Savinji), Mura and Drava rivers (at Murska Sobota), Sava river (at

Ljubljana) and Soča and Adriatic rivers (at Nova Gorica) that explained the FRMP. In 2017, a public

discussion and exhibition was held, covering both UoMs.

5.2.

Consultation mechanisms

In all Member States, the internet was a crucial mechanism for the consultation process itself

(see Figure 5 below). It was mainly used to submit written comments. A high number of

Member States also used workshops and conferences to gather feedback on the consultation.

Figure 5

Mechanisms for the consultation

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

On average, Member States use four different channels to carry out the consultation. The most

popular channels to carry out the consultation were the internet, direct invitations and

workshops and conferences. Bulgaria and Estonia used the highest number of channels, six

each. In Poland, multiple events were held during the six-month FRMP consultation, including

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

conferences, focus meetings, Water Forum and expert meetings. Written comments could also

be submitted by mail or email. After this period, further consultations were held as part of the

SEA procedure for the plans.

Discussions on social media platforms were an innovative method used by Finland. A

discussion forum was also set up on the public consultation page for the Kemijoki catchment

FRMP.

Three Member States used surveys of the public: this was seen, for example, in Bulgaria,

where members of the public were asked about the main issues to be addressed in the FRMP.

In Austria, over 11 000 individuals participated via an online questionnaire (the report does not

say, however, if the questionnaire only looked at the FD or whether it also referred to the

WFD, as both Directives are covered in the “Flussdialog” web portal).

Latvia used a survey of

local governments (rather than the public) as an early input to the FRMPs: the survey included

questions about flood risks in the municipality, currently planned measures and possible non-

traditional solutions to reduce flood risks.

5.3.

Active involvement of stakeholder groups

In the majority of Member States, a broad range of stakeholders were actively involved in the

preparation of the FRMPs (see Figure 6). The leading groups were local and regional

authorities, involved in all the Member States for which information is available, and civil

protection authorities. The latter were consulted for all FRMPs assessed in 14 of the 26

Member States

–

and in 19 Member States for at least some UoMs. Flood warning/defence

authorities and water supply and sanitation companies were actively involved in more than half

of the Member States. Consumer groups and academic and research institutions were actively

involved in very few Member States, according to the information available.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Figure 6

Stakeholder groups actively involved in the preparation of the FRMPs

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

Based on the information provided, on average stakeholders from about eight sectors were

actively involved for all or part of the UoMs. Portugal and Germany were the Member States

actively involving the widest variety of stakeholder groups (14) for its various UoMs, followed

by Bulgaria and Hungary (each with 13).

No information was found in the documents uploaded to WISE, however, about the

stakeholder groups consulted in the development of the FRMPs for two Member States:

Lithuania and Slovenia.

Box 5 - Active involvement of stakeholder groups

A broad range of stakeholder groups were actively involved in the mainland

Portuguese

FRMPs

assessed. For the FRMPs for the Douro (PTRH3) and Vouga, Mondego and Lis (PTRH4A) UoMs

for example, these stakeholders included: government bodies at different levels and for different

sectors, economic interests and civil society associations. For the Douro, solid waste management

companies and insurance companies were also mentioned.

In several Member States, the stakeholders involved varied among FRMPs: this was the case

for Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and the United

Kingdom. For example, in Denmark, where the plans were prepared at municipal level,

stakeholders were involved depending on their relevance for and interest in local flood issues.

Slovenia subsequently informed that this information is published in a separate report on public participation.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Nonetheless, most of the municipalities in Denmark involved a range of actors from public

agencies and the private sector.

MS used a wide variety of mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders (see Figure

7 below). The most common were the establishment of advisory groups, workshops, technical

meetings, seminars or conferences and involving stakeholders in drafting the FRMPs.

Interactive online tools, information events, formation of alliances and regular exhibitions were

the mechanisms used least frequently.

A common mechanism, used in about half of all Member States, was the establishment of

multi-stakeholder advisory

groups. Luxembourg, for example, created “Flood Management

Partnerships” as a mechanism for local stakeholder involvement in flood risk management. In

Bulgaria, active involvement included stakeholder meetings at regional and national levels and

meetings of the Basin Councils: all four UoMs have Basin Councils (required by national law)

that bring together stakeholders. These Councils provided feedback during the preparation of

the FRMPs. In Poland, steering committees were created at water region and RB levels (both

below UoM level). In Estonia, drafts of the FRMP were submitted for review and approval by

the national Commission for RB Management, which brings together government bodies,

national experts and water service companies. In one UoM in Portugal, an Advisory

Committee with 16 representatives of different public, private and civil society bodies was

formed to monitor the development of the FRMP. A consultative council was created for each

of Latvia’s four UoMs (see the box below).

Figure 7

Mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Box 6 - Consultative Councils

A Consultative Council was set up in each of

Latvia’s

four UoMs to coordinate the interests of state

institutions, local authorities and non-governmental organisations as well as private companies and

other interest groups in matters related to the achievement of environmental quality and flood risk

objectives in the area concerned. The main function of the Consultative Council was to evaluate the

RBMP, FRMP and programmes of measures in accordance with the public interest and provide

opinions and recommendations for further development of the plans to the national body responsible,

the Latvian Environmental Geology and Meteorology Centre

. The companies involved were from

the drainage, water, agriculture and energy sectors. During the development of the FRMPs, the

Consultative Councils also participated in negotiations with the Ministry of Agriculture, which is the

responsible authority for implementation of flood risk management measures in rural areas.

In the United Kingdom, Scottish UoMs had Local Advisory Groups which included

representatives from a range of sectors, including government agencies, local authorities, non-

government organisations, utility companies and land and asset managers. In Northern Ireland,

a consultation network was set up to ensure all relevant stakeholders had an opportunity to

participate in discussion and exchange of information and views on the preparation of FRMPs.

Within this network there were three main groups: an FD steering group, an FD stakeholder

group and flood forum groups for each RBD.

In Denmark some municipalities put groups in place to work on specific aspects of the FRMP.

These included relevant interests such as neighbouring municipalities and landowners or

companies that might be affected by the Plan.

In Finland, all the FRMPs assessed had a flood group made up of representatives of

stakeholders that was directly involved in drafting the FRMP. Stakeholders outside the flood

groups were able to contribute to the FRMP through specially-organised workshops.

Workshops and conferences were a mechanism used in 12 Member States. In Estonia, for

instance, a total of 25 meetings and workshops were held with interested parties. Stakeholder

meetings to discuss the draft FRMPs were organised at regional, UoM/RBD and national

levels.

Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Centre which is responsible for the development of the Plans.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

5.4.

Incorporating consultation results in the FRMPs

With regard to the effects of the consultation, for about a third of the Member States assessed,

no information was found in the FRMPs or Member States reporting on how the results of the

consultation had been taken into account

Where information was found, this often indicated that adjustments had been made to specific

measures which had already been selected (12 Member States), and that new information had

been added to the FRMPs (9 Member States). In nine Member States, changes were made to

the actual selection of measures (see Figure 8).

Figure 8

Effects of consultation on the FRMPs

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

Changes to the methodology used as a result of the consultation were reported by Finland as a

result for one of its UoMs and by Croatia for its FRMP (which covers both of that Member

States’ UoMs). In Luxembourg, the FRMP provides extensive information on

how

consultation results were considered (see box below).

Information was in some Member States included in background documents. For instance, Bulgaria, Spain and

Hungary prepared Annexes to the FRMPs with extensive information on the outcomes of the stakeholder

consultations; in Italy, the website for the Eastern Alps RB district (ITA) provided relevant documents, but

similar information was not found on the websites for other FRMPs assessed in Italy.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Box 7 - The effects of consultation on FRMPs

Luxembourg,

the proposal and selection of measures was part of the active involvement

process, particularly through workshops organised for the Flood Management Partnerships, and

consultation of local authorities in flood risk areas. The measures proposed from these workshops

were largely incorporated in the FRMP.

Comments received as a result of the initial consultation on the draft FHRMs in 2010/11 were also

examined and incorporated into the final draft FHRMs which were made available to the public in

2014, together with the draft FRMP. For example, following public consultation and reference to

updated data, some recalculations were performed on some of the maps, and localised adjustments

were made in some APSFRs. In addition, the legend of the Flood Risk Maps was simplified.

In four Member States, the specific impacts of the consultation are not clear (Spain, France,

Lithuania, and the Netherlands). In some Member States, FRMP consultations were carried out

in conjunction with consultations with other matters, for example the RBMP. The Maltese

authorities, for example, combined flood management consultations with a number of other

water-related topics. Eventually, the Maltese stakeholders attending discussions were more

concerned on issues such as water scarcity, which subsequently became the main emphasis of

stakeholders.

For ten Member States, information was not found for some or all UoMs assessed. In Finland,

three out of five FRMPs assessed included information on the effects of consultation on the

plans. In the United Kingdom, the only UoM found that provided a summary of the changes

made as a result of the consultation response was the Neagh Bann in Northern Ireland. For

Italy, while some information on the consultation responses was found on websites, there was

no systematic overview provided on the effects of consultation in any of the five FRMPs

assessed.

5.5.

Summary of good practice and areas for further development

As noted in section 4, the assessment found that all Member States engaged in noteworthy

practices; similarly areas for further development were identified in all. The following

paragraphs summarise, based on the Member States reports and the FRMPs assessed, the good

practices and areas for further development identified in involving stakeholders in the drafting

process for FRMPs.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

5.5.1 Good practice

Many Member States reports and FRMPs underline the efforts made to organise broad

stakeholder consultations at various stages of the development of the FRMPs and at various

levels of influence or competence. Several highlight a strategic approach and an emphasis on

broad public participation. Reference was made to the use of coordination commissions,

partnerships, consultative councils or working groups to streamline the process between

national, regional and local authorities.

Workshops, information fora and technical meetings were organised to actively involve and

engage stakeholders. When it comes to informing the general public, some Member States

created dedicated websites to provide information on the consultations and publish surveys and

summary reports. This facilitates access to information by stakeholders and members of the

public with different levels of technical expertise.

Including feedback on the results of consultations in (annexes to) the FRMPs was also

practiced by several Member States, showing an increased awareness of the importance of

transparency. In one case, a workshop was organised to provide feedback to participants on

how their input had been used, in a more proactive approach. Information from the public has

been used in the different planning and development phases of the FRMPs. This shows greater

willingness on the part of Member States to take account of the concerns and suggestions of

stakeholders and members of the public.

Some Member States are also linking more streamlined participation with integration across

different levels of governance (local, regional, national, transnational) and different objectives

(water quality, flood management, marine). This is likely to contribute to more efficient

planning and greater stakeholder buy-in.

5.5.1. Areas for further development

Although broad public information and consultation campaigns were set up by the Member

States, the concrete effects of these activities and the way in which the consultation activities

have influenced the final FRMP, are in many instances not summarised in the FRMP itself.

Lack of information on the effectiveness of the participation methods used, for example in

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

terms of the number of people involved, the input received and how the input was used should

as well be addressed in the 2

cycle.

Better stakeholder analysis and greater transparency about the stakeholders who have

participated in the planning process would be likely to encourage greater efforts from the part

of the stakeholder groups who are currently not being brought round the table to become

partners. It may be the case, particularly in Member States where a strong public participation

culture has still to be developed, that stakeholders and members of the public only

demonstrated a low level of interest, despite the invitation to participate. In these cases, apart

from continuing to foster a culture of public participation across the spectrum, it may be

worthwhile to measure the success of the channels of communication used, or the messages

passed and, if these were low, to consider alternatives.

The duration of public consultation varied between Member States (and for the United

Kingdom, also between FRMPs).

On this basis, the following recommendations can be made for the preparation of the second

FRMPs:



Information on public and stakeholder involvement should be provided more

systematically in the second FRMPs.

To ensure greater coordination with the public consultation for the RBMPs

–

and to

ensure adequate time is provided to the public to respond, in the next cycle

Member States should consider providing the same, or at least parallel periods for

the consultation of the FRMPs and the RBMPs.



kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Integration of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and

Flood Hazard Maps and Flood Risk Maps

The FRMPs are based on the prior work carried out by Member States: the PFRAs and

FHRMs. These three steps together form part of a chain, as the FHRMs are to be prepared for

the APSFRs identified as a conclusion to the PFRA stage, and the plans are to be established

“on the basis of” the FHRMs (Article 7 of the FD). The conclusions of these previous steps

should be integrated in the FRMPs (in accordance with the Annex of the FD).

6.1.

Overview of the previous steps

MS were to complete their PFRAs by 22 December 2011 (Article 4 of the FD) and then

prepare their FHRMs by 22 December 2013 (Article 6). The results of these two prior steps

were made public by the European Commission in 2015. Member States had three months to

report their PFRAs and FHRMs after they were completed. Most countries were covered by

the 2015 European Commission assessments. Exceptions were: Greece (which was late with

the reporting of both the PFRAs and the FHRMs, now reported); Bulgaria (which was late with

the reporting of the FHRMs, now reported); and Croatia, Malta and Portugal, which were late

in concluding their reporting.

6.1.1. Assessment of the previous steps

Overall, the assessment of the PFRAs

found that:



Some Member States considered in their preliminary assessment all types of floods

depending on their source

while others only some types, but without providing an

explanation why certain types were excluded. In the cases where reasons were

provided, some types of floods were not included because of their unpredictability

European Overview Assessment of Member States’

reports on PFRA and Identification of Areas of Potentially

Significant Flood Risk, September 2015, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm

According to the Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC) (p.61)Member State were to consider the

following types of floods based on the sources of flooding, defined by the CIS Working Group on Floods

(WGF): fluvial, pluvial, groundwater, seawater, floods from artificial water-bearing infrastructure, and other.

The guidance is available at:

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/acbcd98a-9540-480e-a876-

420b7de64eba/Floods%20Reporting%20guidance%20-%20final_with%20revised%20paragraph%204.2.3.pdf

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

or because insufficient data were available; in a number of cases, Member States

indicated their intention to include the missing flood types in future assessments.



MS were to report the adverse impacts of past floods in terms of four main

categories: human health, environment, cultural heritage and economic

consequences. In most cases, the impacts of historic floods were mainly reported in

terms of human health (reflecting the information on record), while the

consequences of potential future floods were reported in terms of economic losses.



To identify and quantify potential future adverse consequences of floods, Member

States applied different methods. Some countries used modelling (hydrological and

hydraulic), while others applied GIS analysis; for many, details about the methods

were not provided.



16 of the 23 Member States assessed considered climate change in their PFRAs,

however, the approaches used were mostly not clear.

The assessment of the FHRMs

found that:



For eight Member States, there were differences between the APSFRs identified in

the PFRA and those for which FHRMs were prepared.

Some types of floods associated with the APSFRs were not included in the

FHRMs. The most common source of floods mapped by Member States was

fluvial (mapped in 25 Member States). The most common sources of reported

historical flood events were fluvial (66% of events) followed by pluvial (20%) and

sea water (16%). In terms of potential future floods, the sources reported were

fluvial (76%) followed by sea water (18%) and pluvial (8%).

Even though all Member States (except the island Member States of Cyprus and

Malta) share RBs with neighbouring countries, in most cases (15) it was not clear if

shared flood hazard and flood risk areas were designated and mapped and if

information was exchanged



EU overview of methodologies used in preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps, September 2015,

available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm

It was subsequently (i.e. post reporting) clarified by the Member States that information was exchanged.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

The 2015 FHRM assessment identified areas for improvement and provided recommendations

for each Member State. In the assessment of the FRMPs, the previously identified areas for

improvement were revisited. However, the majority of the FRMPs assessed do not provide

explicit information if and how these issues have been addressed and if the recommendations

from the 2015 assessment have been considered in the FRMPs. Although the information

available in some of the FRMPs assessed suggest that progress has been made and some of the

areas for improvement have been addressed, to obtain an accurate picture the assessments of

the 2

cycle PFRAs and FHRMs must be carried out first.

6.1.2. Application of Article 13

A Member States may have decided as a transitional measure for the 1

cycle of

implementation of the FD not to undertake the PFRA or identify APSFRs and/or prepare

FHRMs under the FD, if the country had finalised an equivalent exercise before 22 December

2010. The assessment of the PFRAs

indicated that Article 13(1)(a) and (b) were applied in 10

Member States:



Latvia and Luxembourg notified the use of Article 13(1)(a) across all their

territories;



Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal

notified the use of Article 13(1)(b)

across all their territories;

Denmark, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom notified the use of

combinations of Articles 4, 5, 13(1)(a) and/or 13(1)(b) (i.e. they applied Article

13(1) over part/s of their territory).



The assessment of FRMPs found that only a few of these Member States mentioned the

application of Article 13(1) in their FRMPs. The five Italian FRMPs assessed did so,

explaining that Italy used the previous Plans of Hydrogeological Status to identify areas of

flood risk. Latvia’s four FRMPs note that a risk assessment was carried out in 2007.

European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on PFRA and Identification of Areas of Potentially

Significant Flood Risk, September 2015, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm

Portugal subsequently modified its approach and implemented Article 4.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

6.1.3. Changes since the last reporting

The assessment of FRMPs and Member States reporting looked for evidence on whether

Member States have updated their APSFRs or their FHRMs since their last reporting on the

subject. In 9 of the 26 Member States assessed, the FRMPs refer to changes. FRMPs in

Germany, Spain, Romania, Sweden and Luxembourg report modifications to the APSFRs, for

example in terms of boundaries or the total numbers of areas designated. In Belgium, Croatia,

Italy, Romania and Poland, some FRMPs report changes to the FHRMs, e.g. to provide

information missing from the 1

. cycle, reflect updates in the APSFRs or refine the

information in the FHRMs (see the box on Poland below). In seven Member States, the

number of APSFRs changed between the PFRA stage and the FRMP stage (see Table 2 in

section 4).

Box 8 - Example of changes to the previous steps reported in the FRMPs

In Poland,

the FRMPs refer to changes in the identification of flood hazards and risks: a verification

of the FHRMs was carried out in 2014; the FRMPs were based on maps that were updated in 2015

following this verification. The FRMPs explain that the flood hazard maps published in December

2013 were prepared based on a terrain model validated for the years 2011-2013. In 2014, the flood

hazard maps were reviewed in connection to comments made by administrative authorities and other

stakeholders, concerning inter alia, the fact that the maps did not include infrastructure and property

investments completed later than the acquisition of the numerical terrain model. In the period from

22 December 2014 to 22 June 2015, further comments of administrative authorities were received

regarding needs to include flood risk and the methodology used in the development of maps

(including for maps for seawater flooding in terms of wavelengths). To meet these expectations, a

further scenario was prepared for the FRMPs, containing updated ranges of flood risk areas in

relation to the areas indicated in the FHRM in 2014.

6.2.

Conclusions of the PFRAs

Nearly all Member States assessed included the conclusions of their PFRAs in their FRMPs

(with the exception of France and Belgium; the latter applied Article13(1)(b) and did not

prepare a PFRA under the FD). Most often these conclusions are presented as a textual

description, a list or a summary of the APSFRs. Nearly all Member States provide also maps

of the APSFRs designated, such as summary maps or more detailed maps of example APSFRs.

In most cases, the FRMPs also provide links to websites where these and more detailed maps

can be found. The Belgian and French FRMPs also include links to APSFR maps even though

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

they do not provide details about their PFRAs. In at least four Member States, however, the

internet links provided in the FRMPs were not functional at the time of the assessment of the

FRMPs. In three other cases, web-links to maps are provided only for some but not all of the

FRMPs assessed.

The FRMPs in a few Member States note that, in addition to APSFRs, other risk areas were

designated. One example is Latvia, where priority flood areas are designated; another is

Finland, where flood areas not judged as significant were identified.

In ten of the 26 Member States assessed, the FRMPs provide information not only about the

conclusions of the PFRAs but also the methodology and process of their preparation (the box

below provides an example from Bulgaria.

Box 9 - FRMPs that provide information on the PFRA process

Bulgaria,

although the structure and level of detail of the PFRA presentation varies across the

FRMPs, all four present a brief description of the PFRA, information about the main floods and their

causes in the past, analysis of the potential floods in the future (e.g. causes and impacts) and a

description of the designation of APSFRs. The Black Sea FRMP provides a description of the

national methodology for the PFRA, including information used to model future floods. The East

Aegean FRMP also provides detailed maps of the past and potential future floods together with

references and sources for the analysis.

6.2.1. Inclusion of flood conveyance routes

Article 2(1) of the Directive defines flooding as “the

temporary covering by water of land not

normally covered by water.”

According to Articles 4 and 7(3) of the FD, Member States

should include flood conveyance routes in their PFRAs and FRMPs respectively. In both

Articles, flood conveyance routes are mentioned next to flood extent. This is because flood

conveyance routes can be defined either as the progression of flood water downstream, or,

once out of the channel (alternatively, once it has accumulated e.g. due to intense raining) as

the course that flood water follows as it spreads, or extends, beyond the area that it normally

covers. Depending on the source, the characteristics and the mechanism of the flood

, whereas

in a rural, flat area, flood water may spread in all directions, in an urban area with a more

varied terrain (e.g. valleys) and several “obstacles”

(such as buildings or large vehicles) flood

Guidance Document No. 29,

“Guidance for Reporting under the FD”, pp. 59-66.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

water may follow a narrower path, roughly along what would have been a thalweg prior to the

urbanisation of the area.

The assessment of the PFRAs

showed that conveyance routes were one of the aspects most

often not included in the PFRAs: Only six Member States provided information on the

conveyance routes of historical floods. For the FRMPs as well, only some of the FRMPs

assessed include explicit information about flood conveyance routes. Among these, the FRMPs

of five Member States

–

the Czech Republic, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia

–

provide information about the identification of flood conveyance routes. In the Netherlands, for

example, conveyance is mentioned throughout the Rhine FRMP (NLRN) to highlight that

rivers need more space to allow the evacuation of water. Other FRMPs mention that flood

conveyance routes were considered but without providing further detail (this was the case for

FRMPs assessed in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany and Slovenia). However, in yet other

FRMPs assessed, no references to flood conveyance routes were found.

Box 10 - Using the PFRA in the development of FHRMs: examples from Austria and Cyprus

Austria,

the FRMP reports that the PFRA and the identified APSFRs were used as the basis for

developing the FHRMs; some additional sources of information were also consulted (results from

run-off models, zoning/hazard zoning according to Austrian law, hazard zoning plans according to

the 1975 forestry law, and the floods zoning for Austria). The FRMP states that the flood hazard

maps cover more areas than the APSFR if possible, but it is not specified how much more or which

areas in addition to the APSFRs.

Cyprus,

the PFRA created a database of valuable information about past flooding events, their

gravity, extent, location, frequency and the subsequent impacts on the population, the economy and

the environment. The PFRA process contributed to the identification of existing drainage and flood-

relief mechanisms and provided a detailed depiction of current land uses in Cyprus, particularly in

relation to sources of flood. The codification and examination of these data, in combination with

climate change considerations, was used in the identification of APSFRs. The PFRA and APSFRs

were then used as the basis for developing the FHRMs.

European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on PFRA and Identification of Areas of Potentially

Significant Flood Risk, September 2015, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm

Some Member States, including Austria and Italy, note that conveyance routes were considered in the FHRMs

though they were not referred to in the FRMPs assessed. E.g. in Italy, conveyance routes are used to define

measures.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

The reasons why conveyance routes were one of the aspects often not included in the FRMPs

(and PFRAs) are not clear. Possible explanations could be little or no information on past

floods, uncertainty about the probability (or the most likely location) of natural or flood

defence exceedance (or failure); not accurate enough digital models of the terrain or the built

environment; not powerful enough hydrodynamic models.

6.2.2. Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHRMs

Although the level of detail provided across Member States varies, in most cases the results of

the PFRAs were used to inform the FHRMs and FHRMs were prepared for the APSFRs

identified during the PFRA: This process is described in the FRMPs of 15 of the 26 Member

States. The FRMPs of some Member States provide also information on how the FHRMs were

prepared based on the PFRAs (see the box above) or how the preparation of the FHRMs

resulted in some updates of the PFRA/APSFRs (see the box below for examples).

Box 11 - Updating the APSFRs in the FHRM process: examples from Hungary and Luxembourg

Hungary,

the flood risk modelling that was used for the PFRA has been updated to take into

account recent infrastructure (such as roads) and buildings in the floodplain. A 2D numerical

modelling technique

was introduced and applied to calculate the potential flooding, and this work

required updating of the information based on the flood basins, resulting in some modifications of the

PFRA results. For the FHRMs, Hungary revised the design flood protection levels

on all rivers that

were the subject of mapping: the new levels draw upon the modification of the findings of the PFRA.

Luxembourg,

the FRMP reports that some recalculations were performed on the maps for some

APSFRs. Recalculations of mapping data involved consideration of additional measures (extended

re-naturalisation measures in the Alzette APSFR A01, and ecologically oriented flood protection

measures in the Sauer APSFR A03); and in some locations more detailed modelling using a two-

dimensional water level model (Nordstad in A01, Roudbach/Attert confluence A12/A11). These

updates were undertaken in the maps made available to the public in 2014.

A 2D numerical model was applied as, according to the FRMP, this is the only technique with which interim

changes could be tracked effectively and the calculations could be run taking into account the new

circumstances.

Design flood level is the water level for the base flood used in planning for Hungary’s FRMP, this refers to the

water level for a 1% probability flood (based on a flow rate at a given section of the river for the 1%

probability flood)

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

6.3.

Conclusions from the FHRMs

Nearly all Member States assessed reported the conclusions of the FHRMs in their FRMPs

(with the exceptions of France and Malta). Most often these conclusions are presented as a

short textual description or explanation and links to websites where the maps can be found (it

should be noted that the French FRMPs assessed contain links to FHRMs even though details

about these maps are not provided). Some FRMPs reproduce examples of FHRMs. The

internet links provided in some FRMPs were not functional at the time of the assessment: this

was the case for all FRMPs assessed in six Member States and for some but not all of the

FRMPs assessed in four other Member States.

Box 12 - A web site on risk management for the public

the Netherlands,

FHRMs can be seen found on a web site

–

http://www.risicokaart.nl

–

that

provides the public with information on flood risks and other risks, including hazardous substances,

fires and nuclear accidents. Online maps can be accessed by entering a local address. The web site also

provides information on preparation in case of a flood, alert networks and actions to take during a flood

event. A similar website exists in the United Kingdom:

https://www.gov.uk/check-flood-risk

6.3.1. Flooding sources

As noted above, the assessment of Member States’ PFRAs noted that in many cases,

not all

conceivable flood sources were explicitly considered. The assessment of FRMPs found a

continuation of this practice: The majority of the FRMPs assessed provide only limited

information about the sources of floods considered, likely making the implicit assumption that

the sources considered in previous steps of the cycle are carried over. In few cases, namely

Belgium, Malta and Romania, the FRMPs assessed do not provide any information concerning

the sources of floods considered, while in Bulgaria’s

case, the information is provided in some

but not all FRMPs assessed. Many of the FRMPs assessed mention flood sources without

explanation why some types of floods have not been included

–

this is the case for the FRMPs

from 12 Member States.

The assessment of the PFRAs

indicated that four Member States had not included any

information on sources of flooding in their flood risk assessments since they applied Article

European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on PFRA and Identification of Areas of Potentially

Significant Flood Risk, September 2015, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

13(1)(b). All other Member States, except for Luxembourg

, had considered fluvial floods in

their assessments. Thirteen Member States had considered all five types of flooding sources

–

fluvial, pluvial, groundwater, seawater and floods from artificial water bearing structures

(AWBS)

; of these, only four Member States considered all five types of floods as significant,

while for five Member States there was no information why some types of considered were

significant or not. Of the other countries, eight Member States provided explanation why some

types of flooding sources were not considered as significant while seven countries excluded

some types of flooding without providing a justification

Considering the sources of flooding for which FHRMs were prepared, the assessment of the

FHRMs

analysed information for 26 Member States (Bulgaria and Greece were late with the

reporting) and found at the time that all Member States

prepared maps for fluvial floods. In

addition, 17 Member States prepared maps for seawater floods, 14 for pluvial floods, 9 for

floods from AWBS and only 4 for groundwater floods

Explanations or justification of the choice of flooding sources included in the FRMPs were

found only in the FRMPs of some Member States including Austria and Denmark (described

in the box below) as well as Cyprus, Luxembourg and Sweden. Hungary, Slovakia and

Slovenia report covering ‘all relevant’ sources of floods either separately or together, while the

Portuguese FRMPs explain that additional sources of flooding will be considered in the next

management cycle.

Box 13 - Examples of explanations which sources of floods have been included in the FHRMs

Austria,

fluvial and pluvial floods are considered significant. However, no APSFRs have been

designated so far for pluvial flooding, as these are very local events in Austria, and the uncertainties

were considered too high. Floods from groundwater and artificial water bearing structures are not

considered significant, and again no APSFRs have been designated. Hence, APSFRs have been

designated only for fluvial floods (including floods from lakes) and as a result FHRMs have been

Subsequently Luxembourg clarified that it was in fact fluvial flooding that was considered.

Table 10 in European

Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on PFRA and Identification of Areas of

Potentially Significant Flood Risk, September 2015, p.40, link as above.

Table 13 in European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on PFRA and Identification of

Areas of

Potentially Significant Flood Risk, September 2015, pp.49-50.

EU overview of methodologies used in preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps, September 2015,

available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm

Except Luxembourg, however, as noted in an earlier footnote, it was fluvial flooding also for Luxembourg.

Table 3.1 in EU overview of methodologies used in preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps,

September 2015, p.19.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

produced only for this type of floods.

Denmark,

the FHRMs in all FRMPs assessed cover only fluvial and seawater floods. Neither in the

FRMPs assessed, nor in the national web-GIS, are there maps for groundwater floods or floods from

artificial water bearing structures (according to the PFRA assessment, the latter are not relevant for

Denmark; information was not found, however, to indicate if groundwater floods could be relevant

Pluvial flooding was not assessed at the PFRA stage. Nevertheless, for one of the five municipal

FRMPs assessed a local map was prepared showing the combined effect of flooding from seawater,

fluvial and pluvial sources.

Considering the information available in the FRMPs assessed (a summary is provided in the

following table) the most significant source of flooding in the majority of the Member States is

fluvial floods. Some Member States considered also seawater floods or the combined effects of

multiple sources of floods (in fact Slovenia and Slovakia presented only the combined effects

of different types of floods). Overall, few Member States considered pluvial and groundwater

floods or floods from artificial water bearing structures.

Table 6

Types of flooding sources reported in the FRMPs assessed per Member State

Fluvial



Not relevant



Not relevant



Pluvial

Seawater

Not relevant



Ground-

water

AWBS

Other

sources

Multiple

sources

European Commission, Assessment of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps Member State Report: DK

–

Denmark, 2015. Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/DK%20FHRM%20Report.pdf

At the FHRM stage, Belgium prepared maps for fluvial, pluvial, sea water, groundwater and AWBS floods.

At the FHRM stage, Estonia prepared maps for fluvial, pluvial and sea water floods.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Fluvial



()



Pluvial

Seawater



Ground-

water

AWBS



Other

sources

Multiple

sources



Not relevant



()

Not relevant



()



()



Sources: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

Notes: AWBS=Artificial Water Bearing Structures; NA=Not available (i.e. information was not

available in the FRMPs assessed, footnotes were added based on the ‘EU overview of

methodologies used in preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps’ report); (



)=the

flood type was considered through the assessment of ‘multiple sources’ of floods.

6.3.2. Using the FHRMs in the development of the FRMPs

The FRMPs assessed, along with Member States reporting to WISE, provide some information

in nearly all Member States on how the FHRMs were used to prepare the Plans themselves

(with the exception of Croatia and Malta whose FRMPs do not describe how the FHRMs

informed the plans).

Many FRMPs refer to the FHRMs informing the definition of the measures. Some Member

States report that the FHRMs informed the setting of objectives or priorities and the public

participation process (for an overview see the following table).

Table 7

Use of the FHRMs in the development of the FRMPs per Member State

Setting FRM

priorities



Setting FRM

objectives

Defining FRM

measures



Public participation process

At the FHRM stage, Malta prepared maps for pluvial floods.

At the FHRM stage, Romania prepared maps for fluvial and pluvial floods.

In Sweden, separate maps for floods from AWBS were produced but these were not included in the FHRMs.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Setting FRM

priorities



Setting FRM

objectives



Defining FRM

measures



Public participation process



Sources: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

Notes: FRM=Flood Risk Management; information not found in the FRMP for Malta; in Croatia the

FHRMs informed the assessment of potential damages.

Despite these references, few FRMPs provide a detailed explanation of the role FHRMs played

in the preparation of the Plans.

Box 14 - Using the FHRMs in the development of the FRMPs

Portugal,

all FRMPs include a standard text regarding the relevance of the FHRM work and its

results for the definition of the FRMP. In four of the FRMPs assessed

it is clearly stated that the

FHRMs have been used to define and prioritise flood risk measures and their type (although it is not

clear how the maps guided the definition of objectives). The measures were devised and prioritised

considering the damages identified in the FHRMs, and in particular addressing the significance of:

human lives at jeopardy, potential damage to the environment, potential damage to infrastructure and

potential damage to hazardous industry.

the United Kingdom,

the English FRMPs assessed (Solway Tweed for the English part of UK02

Portugal subsequently clarified that this approached was applied for all mainland FRMPs.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

and Severn, UK09) state that in developing the proposed measures, conclusions were drawn from

FHRMs which help to identify risks and opportunities. In the Scottish strategies assessed (Clyde and

Loch Lomond in UK01 and Solway in the Scottish part of UK02), it is stated that the FHRMs helped

inform the selection of measures to manage flood risk in Potentially Vulnerable Areas. Target areas

within the Potentially Vulnerable Areas have been set to focus measures.

6.4.

Coordination with other Member States and third countries

6.4.1. PFRA/APSFR stage coordination

The assessment of the PFRA and FHRM stages found that inter-MS provision of information

was lacking regarding transboundary cooperation

, including on the existence of shared flood

risk areas. The FRMPs assessed provide some information on this topic. Nearly all Member

States which share UoMs with neighbouring Member States report that coordination took place

during the PFRAs, even though common transboundary APSFRs were hardly identified. In

fact, references to shared APSFRs were found in the FRMPs of only two Member States

assessed: Bulgaria (APSFRs shared with Greece to the south and Romania to the north) and

Finland (APSFRs shared with Sweden). This is contrary to at least one international FRMP,

where transboundary APSFRs were identified. Considering the transboundary nature of

significant flooding, this apparent contradiction should be resolved in the direction of

appreciating the whole extent of an APSFRs’ area of influence (upstream and downstream), as

opposed to resorting to exclusively nationally defined APSFRs.

In most cases, the FRMPs assessed, as well as Member States reporting, refer to coordination

on flood risk management through the river commissions for international RBs. In some cases,

coordination under bilateral agreements is also reported, for example between Germany and

the Netherlands. The FRMPs for both Bulgaria and Slovenia, for example, describe bilateral

meetings with neighbouring Member States and, in Bulgaria’s case, also with third countries.

6.4.2. FHRM stage coordination

As noted above, very few assessed FRMPs refer to shared APSFRs, which would require

preparation of joint FHRMs. The FRMPs in Bulgaria and Finland provided an overview of

work on joint FHRMs (see the box below).

The Member States subsequently clarified that the absence of information was an omission and that there exists

transboundary cooperation, as was later largely confirmed by the assessment of national and international

FRMPs.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

In other Member States, FRMPs indicate that information on FHRMs was exchanged with

neighbouring countries and via international

RB commissions. Luxembourg’s FRMP, for

example, refers to close co-operation with neighbouring Member States within international

RB commissions as well as within an Interreg project called TIMIS Flood (Transitional

Internet Map Information System on Flooding).

Box 15 - Examples of international coordination on joint FHRMs

Bulgaria,

FHRMs were prepared for all risk areas shared with other Member States in

transboundary UoMs. The development of the FHRMs for these two transboundary APSFRs was

coordinated and based on mutually agreed methodologies within the international Danube RB, and

with Greece. The Danube FRMP explains that the FHRMs for the Bulgarian area of the Danube were

prepared as part of the project Danube Floodrisk

100

, which included all countries from the ICPDR as

partners to the project. As part of the project all national methodologies were coordinated and a

common database with all necessary data was set up. The preparation of the FHRMs for the

transboundary area with Romania was bilaterally coordinated at each step of the preparation. The

preparation of the FHRMs for the transboundary APSFR shared with Greece was coordinated by the

technical sub-group to the joint expert group under the Joint Declaration for Cooperation in the Area

of Water Management with Greece. At its meetings, the methodologies of the two countries were

discussed, a common methodology (e.g. concerning the scenarios to include) for the development of

the FHRMs in the transboundary areas was agreed and necessary data exchanged.

Finland,

the only international UoM analysed in detail for this assessment is Tornionjoki

(FIVHA6), shared with Sweden, with an APSFR shared on both sides of the border. In this

catchment, flood maps were elaborated in co-operation with Swedish authorities. In the FRMP

summary, it is indicated that the Finnish-Swedish Transboundary River Commission and the

Swedish authority MSB (Swedish

Civil Contingencies Agency)

gave their written opinions on the

designation of the APSFR. Moreover, in the FRMP it is explained that a joint Interreg IV A project,

“Detailed inundation planning in the lower part of Tornio River”, carried out from 2009-2012,

estimated flood risk. A specific coordination body was not formed for the FRMP; rather,

coordination work was carried out by the authorities of both regions and via the Finnish-Swedish

Transboundary River Commission. The corresponding

Swedish

FRMP also refers to the Interreg IV

A project, but provides fewer details.

100

http://www.danube-floodrisk.eu/

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

6.5. Summary of good practice and areas for further development

In terms of

good practices,

the FRMPs of all Member States assessed provide information

about the previous steps of the flood risk management cycle, and nearly all provide

conclusions from the PFRAs and the FHRMs together with maps of APSFRs and examples of

FHRMs (even if in some cases the maps are provided only via web-links). Some Member

States provide details about the process of preparing the PFRAs and the FHRMs. A few

Member States (including Bulgaria, Finland and Luxembourg) provide detailed descriptions of

coordination during the PFRA and FHRM stages with neighbouring Member States and third

countries.

Areas for further development identified in the FRMPs assessed include the following:

Although Member States often state that the PFRAs and the FHRMs informed the

development of FRM priorities, objectives and measures, details how insights from previous

phases were used are missing in many of the FRMPs. For instance there appears to be room for

progress in estimating flood conveyance routes.

Some countries do not provide links to websites where all maps of APSFRs or FHRMs can be

found while in some cases, the web-links provided in the FRMPs are no longer functional.

Although most Member States provide at least some information about the sources of flooding

considered in the FRMPs, this information is not available in all FRMPs assessed and in some

cases the omission of some conceivable sources of flooding is not explained or clearly

justified.

Considering the transboundary nature of flood risk, some Member States nevertheless do not

provide details on international coordination during the PFRA and FHRM phases in their

FRMPs.

On this basis, the following recommendations can be made for the preparation of the second

FRMPs:



In the next cycle, Member States should provide more information on the main

sources of flooding identified, on how the results of the PFRA and FHRM steps

were used in the preparation of the FRMPs (including conveyance routes) and on

the approach to international coordination for the prior steps of the risk

management cycle as well as the Plans themselves.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel



Online access to PFRA/APSFR information and FHRMs should be provided and

maintained in order to preserve and make available the full context within which

the FRMP is developed and implemented.



The full extent of an APSFRs’ area of influence (upstream and downstream)

should be considered with a view to identifying APSFRs with a transboundary

dimension; this aspect is also relevant in deciding on measures.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Setting objectives for the management of flood risks

The FRMPs should describe the objectives for the management of flood risk for the APSFRs

identified. These objectives should focus on reducing the “potential adverse consequences of

flooding for human health, the environment,

cultural heritage and economic activity” (Article

7(2) of the FD). Where appropriate, the objectives should also focus “on non-structural

initiatives and/or on the reduction of the likelihood of flooding”.

To appreciate by when objectives are to be achieved, they need to be measurable, if possible

with clear targets and a timeframe for their achievement: if this is the case, quantitative

indicators can be defined to monitor progress towards the targets.

7.1.

7.1.1.

Overview

Administrative level at which objectives are set

All Member States assessed have set objectives in their FRMPs

101

. Figure 9 below shows the

level at which the objectives are set across the 26 Member States that reported in time for

inclusion in the assessment.

Objectives are set at national level in 15 of the 26 Member States where all FRMPs have the

same objectives (or in the case of Austria, Hungary, Cyprus, Croatia, and Malta, a single

national FRMP). Portugal follows a nearly national approach: Common objectives were set for

the FRMPs covering the mainland UoMs, and these were also adopted in one autonomous

island region (Madeira, PTRH10); the other autonomous island region (Azores, PTRH9) set its

objectives independently.

101

Only one exception has been identified: One of Denmark’s 20 municipal FRMPs was at a “strategic level”

(taken to mean that its provisions need not be very detailed) and does not contain objectives.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Figure 9

Level at which FRMP objectives are set

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

In five Member States

–

Estonia, France, Germany, Spain and Sweden (see box below)

–

a set

of national objectives is adapted at the level of individual FRMPs. In France, three objectives

are set in a national floods policy; the FRMPs, which are prepared at UoM level, refer to these

objectives and also set their own. In Germany, one of the five FRMPs assessed

– for Bavaria’s

Danube FRMP in DE1000

– further articulates the four national objectives into six “action

objectives”; two other FRMPs assessed –

the Elbe UoM (DE5000) and the Schlei/Trave UoM

(DE9610) both identify three further objectives (for example, one further objective is to “take

into consideration the interests of regionally responsible actors”. In Spain, eight national

objectives are set, and the FRMPs then prioritise these based on their local situations.

Box 16 - Adapting national objectives to the level of the FRMP

Sweden

there are four national objectives which are then refined further in each FRMP into

specific objectives, measure related objectives and knowledge objectives with the result of each

FRMP having a slightly different set of objectives.

The five FRMPs assessed use the structure of three objective ‘types’ in different ways:



The FRMP for Älvsbyn defines 9 specific objectives;

The FRMP for Falun has 30 objectives, including specific, measure-oriented and knowledge

objectives;

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel



The FRMP for Karlstad presents 16 specific and knowledge objectives but no measure-

oriented objectives;

The FRMP for Kristianstad has 17 objectives, including specific, measure-oriented and

knowledge objectives;

The FRMP for Stockholm defines 14 specific objectives.

In two of the 26 Member States, objectives are set at regional level: Belgium and the United

Kingdom (for the latter, “regional” level refers to the four jurisdictions of England, Northern

Ireland, Scotland and Wales). In one Member State, Denmark, FRMPs were prepared at

municipal level, and each municipality set separate objectives.

Objectives were set at UoM/FRMP level in only two Member States: in Finland, where each

FRMP, prepared for a sub-UoM catchment, sets its own objectives; and in Italy, where

objectives are set for each FRMP (some FRMPs are prepared at UoM level and others at RBD

level

–

in Italy the two designations in most cases have different geographical boundaries). In

Italy, however, all but three UoMs follow a similar approach recommended at national level,

with objectives set for the four themes of reducing adverse consequences to human health,

economic activity, cultural heritage and environment. In figure 9 above, the one “other” refers

to Portugal, where mainland UoMs take a national approach, while the islands take a

regional/UoM approach (although Madeira identifies the same objectives as those on the

mainland).

7.1.2. Structure and number of objectives

In addition to setting objectives at different geographical scales, several Member States have

used a two-level approach for their objectives. For example, in Croatia, two main objectives

are set, which are neither specific nor measurable, but are accompanied by two strategic aims

which are indeed specific and measurable. Poland has set three main areas for its objectives:

(1) halting any increase in flood risks, (2) reducing existing flood risks and (3) improving the

management system for floods. Under these three areas, more detailed objectives are set. This

approach is seen in eight Member States, around a third of those assessed (in three of these

Member States, namely Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom, a two-level approach is

used in some but not all FRMPs).

In terms of the number of objectives, some Member States set a few broad objectives: an

example is seen in the box below on Austria. Other Member States present a larger number,

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

often of more specific sub-objectives, in their FRMPs: Table 8 showing the objectives for

Bulgaria provides an example.

Box 17 - Flood risk management objectives

The FRMP’s objectives in

Austria

are based on the "Hochwasserrisikokreislauf" (flood risk cycle),

which itself is based on the disaster risk management cycle (response/rehabilitation and

reconstruction/prevention and mitigation/preparedness). From this, four generic objectives are

formulated:

1 Avoidance of new risks prior to a flood event.

2 Reduction of existing risks prior to a flood event.

3 Reduction of adverse consequences during and after a flood event.

4 Strengthening the awareness of hazard and risk.

Table 8

Objective

Bulgaria’s national objectives and their sub-objectives

Sub-objective

1.1 Minimising the number of people hurt or impacted by floods;

1.2 Ensuring the fast conveyance of waters from urban areas in cases of intensive

rainfall or floods;

1.3 Re-establishing normal living conditions

1.4 Minimising the number of impacted social infrastructure

1.Protecting human lives

and public health

2.Higher level of protection

of the critical infrastructure

and businesses

3.Increasing the protection

of the environment

2.1 Improving the protection of the technical infrastructure

2.2 Improving the protection of important economic and cultural and historic sites

3.1 Improving the protection of the sewerage systems;

3.2 Improving the protection of industrial sites (mainly IPPC and SEVESO sites);

3.3 Minimising the impacted areas for protected waters, protected territories and

protected zones;

3.4 Improving the water retention capabilities of agricultural, forest and coastal

areas.

4.Improving the

preparedness and reactions

of the population:

4.1 Increasing the preparedness of the population in case of floods

4.2 Improving the reactions of the population in case of floods

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

5.Improving the

administrative capacity for

flood risk management

5.1 Creating a modern normative base for territorial planning and FRM

5.2 Providing operative information for FRM

5.3 Enhancing the qualification/skills of the personnel responsible for FRM

5.4 Minimising the flood risk along the water route of the whole RB

5.5 Ensuring the adequate reactions of the public institutions in case of floods

This variety shows the different ways in which Article 7 of the FD has been implemented in

the various Member States, with adaptation to local circumstance and context, including their

geographies, administrative flood risk management structures and policy or methodological

legacies.

Since risk is generally defined as the product of “impact x likelihood”, the

two following

sections examine how these two dimensions were considered in objective setting (cf. Article

7(2) and point 2 in the preamble of the FD).

7.1.3. Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods

The FD calls for objectives to address the “potential adverse consequences of flooding”. This

is the case for the objectives in all the FRMPs assessed

102

For ten of the Member States assessed

103

, strong evidence was found that the objectives

specifically consider all four areas cited in the Directive: human health, economic activity,

environmental, and cultural heritage: in other words, these are specifically cited in the

objectives (see Figure 10 below). In Latvia, for example, the overall objective of flood risk

management across four FRMPs is to reduce adverse consequences of floods on human health,

environment, cultural heritage and economic activities, including the reduction of potential

surface water pollution and of erosion processes along the sea, rivers, and lake shores.

For 16 other Member States, the evidence was considered less strong, and one or more of these

four areas were not explicitly cited. In Hungary, for example, the FRMP states that the

objectives address adverse consequences to human health first, and environment and economic

activity second; cultural heritage is not specifically mentioned. In Denmark, all 20 municipal

102

103

It should be noted that in Malta the objectives refer to specific actions to be taken rather than broader goals

such as reducing adverse consequences of flooding. However, Maltese confirmed that the primary objective

for the development of the FRMP was to reduce such potential adverse consequences

Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania and

Sweden.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

FRMPs call for reducing adverse consequences of flooding; however, not all refer explicitly to

consequences on human health, economic activities, cultural heritage or the environment.

In several FRMPs, quite specific objectives are developed for these areas. For example, in

Lithuania, the third objective of the

FRMPs is that “no new significant pollution sources that

may be hazardous to the environment and public health shall be established in low probability

flood zones (0.1% of probability)”. In Romania, national objectives include the goal to

minimise flood risks on transport infrastructure, and the following indicator is identified for

this objective: Length and importance of the transport infrastructure (roads, railways, railway

stations, ports, airports, etc.) exposed to flood risk.

Figure 10

Evidence that FRMP objectives address potential adverse consequences of

floods

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

Somewhat fewer objectives address cultural heritage. One example is seen in Italy, where the

FRMP for Sardinia (ITR201) sets two objectives for cultural heritage: Mitigation of possible

damages to the landscape system; Safeguarding archaeological and architectural sites,

historical and artistic heritage, monuments, museums.

7.1.4. Objectives to reduce the likelihood of flooding

For the second dimension, i.e. objectives to explicitly address the reduction of the likelihood of

flooding, these were almost equally referred to by the MS, but on the whole represented less

prominently in the FRMPs assessed: Thus, strong evidence was found in the FRMPs of 9 of

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

the 26 Member States assessed, and some or weak evidence in 15 Member States, with no

evidence in two Member States

104

. Reducing the likelihood of flooding would mean fewer

cases where there is natural or defence exceedance. This could for example be via a reduction

in peak flows (through for instance natural water retention upstream), instead of, or next to,

reinforcing defences. This finding should warrant closer attention in the 2

cycle of

implementation.

Examples of Member States that set objectives in this area include Slovenia, whose FRMP also

links the objective for the reduction of the likelihood of flooding to measures related to proper

planning, construction and the management and maintenance of infrastructure for protection

from adverse effects of flood waters, among others. Further, both Austria and Germany call for

the mitigation of existing risks prior to a flood event and the mitigation of new risks. In

addition, the Czech Republic set the reduction of the likelihood of flooding as one of the two

strategic objectives. This is further addressed by a specific objective, reduction of flood danger

(through implementation of measures aiming at flood retention, flood peak reduction, increase

of natural water retention, implementation of good agricultural and forestry practices enabling

water retention and proper rainwater management in urban areas).

In a few Member States, objectives refer to specific initiatives to reduce the likelihood of

flooding, and the focus there seems to be on protection from flooding. For example, some of

the municipal FRMPs in Denmark call for improving infrastructure, such as sea dykes, to

reduce the likelihood of flooding. Other Danish FRMPs identify a level of protection to

achieve: The Solrød FRMP defines a target of protection against 2.8m sea level rise for its

infrastructure, equivalent to a 1000-year return interval event for some areas.

7.1.5. Objectives for non-structural initiatives

A majority of the Member States assessed, 15 out of 26, provide strong evidence that their

objectives call for non-structural initiatives, such as improving the process of flood risk

management, addressing flood issues in land use planning or raising awareness amongst the

population. In Bulgaria, for example, two objectives call for improving the preparedness of the

population for floods and the reactions of the population in flood events; in addition, five

objectives call for improving administrative capacity for flood risk management, including the

legal basis for territorial planning and the skills of personnel. In Latvia, an objective calls for

improving the information base by developing a Flood Risk Information System and

104

Portugal and Sweden.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

improving early warning. Portugal’s objectives call for improving knowledge and forecasting

and also improving spatial planning and exposure management in flood risk areas.

In seven further Member States, there is some evidence for non-structural initiatives. In Italy,

for example, the five FRMPs assessed did not include objectives in this area

105

; however, all

five include non-structural measures. Moreover, the FRMP for the Po UoM (ITN008), the

largest in Italy, calls for “improving knowledge of [flood] risk”. In the United Kingdom,

raising awareness of flood risks is an objective in the England and Northern Ireland FRMPs

assessed, but such non-structural initiatives are not part of the objectives for the equivalent

documents assessed for Scotland; it should be noted although that in Scotland, non-structural

initiatives are a mandatory consideration in the development of all measures.

Finally, in four Member States, the objectives do not specifically call for non-structural

initiatives.

7.2.

Specific and measurable objectives

From the second cycle onwards, FRMPs should include an assessment of the progress made

towards the achievement of the objectives set (Annex of the Directive). Defining objectives

with at least some degree of specificity

–

and linking measures with objectives

–

would aid this

assessment of progress. To be specific, an objective should provide clear information on what

should be achieved, on the location where it should be achieved and on the timetable for

achievement. To be measurable, it should be possible to express the objective in a quantitative

form; ideally, a target should be set.

The objectives in 12 Member States include at least some specific and measurable elements.

This is the case for all objectives set in the Finnish FRMPs assessed (see the box below).

Box 18 - Measurable objectives

Finland,

some objectives set quantitative targets to be achieved (e.g. number of flooded

dwellings, economic damage from floods, and number of days key services are disrupted by floods)

and clear locations where the objectives will be achieved (e.g. which APSFR). It is clear how some

of the objectives will be achieved (e.g. by specifying measures) but there is no information by when.

The FRMPs assessed include quantifiable objectives which cover all dwellings or sites hard to

105

Although it must be noted that all FRMPs assessed include non-structural measures.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

evacuate. For example, in the FRMP of Kokemäenjoki catchment area (part of FIVHA3) an objective

is set that all permanent housing in the flood risk area is protected from floods or preparedness to

floods is such that the health and safety of people are not compromised.

Numerical targets are not common. Nevertheless, one example is found in the FRMP of Hamina and

Kotka coastal area (part of FIVHA2), where an objective sets the maximum hours of power, heat,

water and telecommunication loss due to floods.

Some Member States have linked indicators to their objectives, making them more specific and

measurable: this is the case in Bulgaria and Romania (see the box below). On the other hand,

in Poland, the FRMPs set out common indicators to monitor the achievement of the three

objectives, although the objectives themselves do not contain targets.

Box 19 - Indicators to measure the achievement of objectives

Romania

has identified quantitative indicators for each of its national objectives. Examples include:

number of inhabitants exposed to floods, transport infrastructure exposed to floods, agricultural land

exposed to floods; number of museums, churches and monuments exposed to flood risk; number of

areas under the IPPC

–

IED, Wastewater and Seveso II Directives that are subject to flood risks. For

each indicator, a minimum and an ‘aspirational’ target is set.

Bulgaria

also identified indicators for its national objectives: for example, objective 1.4 is to minimise

the number of social infrastructure

facilities affected by floods, and the indicator for this is “the number

of social infrastructure facilities potentially impacted by floods with a 1% probability of occurrence”.

However, a time frame for achieving these objectives is not set.

In little over half of the Member States assessed

–

14 out of 26

–

the objectives are neither

specific nor measurable. Many Member States have set objectives in general terms: For

example, Germany’s national objectives include the reduction of adverse consequences

during

a flood event and the reduction of adverse consequences after a flood event. In Spain, one of

the eight general objectives is more specific compared to Germany’s example above, to

“increase the perception of flood risk and self-protection

strategies on the part of the

population and social and economic agents”, however not measurable.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

7.3.

Setting the objectives: coordination

The FRMPs in several Member States describe the process for setting objectives; however,

most FRMPs assessed have at best brief information on this topic.

In several Member States, the FRMPs refer to discussions among government bodies. In

Germany, for example, the overall objectives for all plans were set by LAWA, the Working

Group on water issues of the Federal States and the Federal Government

106

, and thus were

agreed among the Federal States and the Ministry of Environment. In Romania, the objectives

were coordinated at national level by the working group set up to develop the FRMPs, which

included specialists from the Romanian Waters, RB Administrations, and the National Institute

for Hydrology and Water Management.

Other Member States refer to discussions at international level: Luxembourg’s FRMP refers to

coordination with the international commissions for the Meuse

107

, Mosel-Saar

108

and Rhine

109

;

Hungary’s FRMP refers to coordination with the international commission for the Danube

110

Only one plan, Finland’s Tornionjoki FRMP (FIVHA6) refers to bilateral coordination:

Finland shares this international UoM with Sweden, and objectives were coordinated between

the authorities of the two Member States.

With regard to consultation with the public and stakeholders, most FRMPs assessed did not

explicitly state that consultation was undertaken on the objectives themselves. On the other

hand, several did note, for example in Croatia, that the objectives were part of the general

public and stakeholder consultations carried out on the FRMP. However, one example is seen

in Italy’s Eastern Alps FRMP (ITA), where stakeholder workshops covered

a series of topics,

and early workshops discussed the FRMP’s objectives. In Luxembourg public participation

was an integral part of preparing the FRMP, including setting overall objectives, and

identifying more detailed local objectives and measures.

In two Member States

–

the Czech Republic and Poland

–

the FRMPs state that objectives

were built on the objectives of previous flood and water management plans. Bulgaria notes that

a preparatory project financed by EU’s Cohesion Policy supported the development

of the

FRMPs, including their objectives.

106

107

http://www.lawa.de/index.php?a=2

http://www.meuse-maas.be/Accueil.aspx

108

http://www.iksms-cipms.org/servlet/is/392/

109

https://www.iksr.org/en/

110

https://www.icpdr.org/main/

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

7.4.

Summary of good practices and areas for further development

Looking across the Member States, it is clear that there are some

good practices

–

for

example, addressing the likelihood of flooding and non-structural initiatives in objectives, as

well as providing clear information on the process for the development of objectives

–

as well

as some areas for further development which are highlighted in the previous sections. One

main finding in terms of

areas for further development

applies to the majority of the

Member States: The objectives are not specific or measurable in terms of what should be

achieved, on the location where it should be achieved and on the timetable for achievement.

This finding should be further evaluated, also in relation to the findings on the measures set for

achieving the objectives (discussed in chapter 8).

On this basis, the following recommendation can be made for the preparation of the second

FRMPs:



For the second cycle, FRMP objectives should be as specific and measurable as

possible to be able to make an assessment of progress towards the achievement of

objectives set. Ideally, objectives should be SMART: Specific, Measurable,

Attainable, Realistic and Timebound.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Measures for the achievement of objectives

At the general level, the FD states that FRMPs “…shall

include measures for achieving the

objectives established…”

(Article 7(2)). The Annex of the Directive requires MS to include as

a component of their FRMP/s a summary of the measures. As a consequence, at the EU level it

is challenging to create representative statistics of measures across the EU. Moreover, Member

States could report their measures as either “individual” or “aggregated”

111

. The following

analysis therefore provides a high level illustration to appreciate the situation rather than an

accurate account of measures selected by the Member States to be used for scientific analysis.

All Member States that reported provided a list of measures and summary information for each

measure. The number of measures reported, however, varies significantly across the Member

States from 17 568 measures in Germany

112

to 10 measures in Malta (see Table 9 below). The

variance goes beyond any possible differences in size, population or flood risks assessed: For

example, comparing two Member States in north-western Europe of similar populations,

France reported 648 measures while the United Kingdom reported 9 391. In terms of

individual or aggregated measures, here too, there is no clear pattern, with three Member States

reporting only individual measures, nine reporting only aggregated measures and 14 reporting

both types of measures (based on 26 Member States that reported by April 2018)

113

Some differences in approach are explained in the

FRMPs. Estonia’s FRMPs, for example, set

out a three-level

structure of 12 “measure blocks”, the broadest category, each with one or

more “measure groups” (24 measure groups in total) and then 110 specific “actions”

114

Several Member States reporting only aggregated measures, as Estonia, indicated either in their

FRMPs or in subsequent communication that the measures reported incorporate a higher

number of activities and projects. Most Member States however did not use a hierarchy like

this for their measures.

The Reporting Guidance mentions that “Measures can be reported as individual measures (recommended for

major projects) or aggregated measures,…” and also notes that measures may be comprised of “many

individual projects”. European Commission, Guidance for

Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC), 2013, pp.

54-58.

112

Germany reported only aggregated measures, each of which can include a set of individual actions.

113

It is also worth noting that it appears (through comparison of reported information with the FRMPs) that

several Member States did not report the, at the time, actual number of measures (as reflected in the FRMP),

either because the individual situation of a Member State did not conform with a standardised reporting

system, or because of an error in the reporting.

114

Estonia reported the number of “measure groups”. Due to such structures and possibly other reasons, for a few

Member States the number of measures listed in the FRMPs differs from the number reported to the European

Commission via WISE. Where possible, information presented here is based on WISE reporting.

111

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Table 9

Number of measures reported by each Member State

Aggregated

9 775

184

17 568

1 171

107

6 741

116

223

791

210

336

Individual

484

133

192

412

601

1 605

813

2 429

2347

138

1 381

9 055

Total

9 775

668

194

17 568

1 363

412

648

107

8 346

883

116

2 429

299

3 138

348

1 413

9 391

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016 and 2017.

Notes: Member States including Estonia, Germany and Slovenia have indicated that the measures

reported will be elaborated through a higher number of activities and projects. Croatia’s

FRMP, prepared at national level, contains 54 measures (53 national and one in only one of

the two Croatian UoMs); in the reporting at UoM level, a total of 107 measures were indicated

(54 in one UoM and 53 in the other). Italy later noted that there is a total of 8 348 measures,

rather than 8 346, a reporting inaccuracy. In Latvia, the FRMPs detail 101 measures,

compared to 96 measures reported to WISE.

Consequently, due to the many differences in approach, the numbers of measures cannot be

compared across Member States (the sections that follow refer to shares rather than numbers of

measures).

Specifically with regard to the nature of measures, the FD stipulates that FRMPs “…shall

address all aspects of flood risk management…”

(Article 7(3)). In their reporting, Member

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

States were requested to assign each measure to one or more aspect: prevention, protection,

preparedness and recovery & review (“no action” or “other type of measure” could also be

chosen)

115

Figure 11

Share of measures by measure aspect

116

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016 and 2017.

Note: Based on all measures reported for 26 Member States. Please note that some measures were

reported for more than one aspect; all aspects reported are included.

The share of measures assigned to each aspect varies across Member States (see Figure 11

above), however, on average, 41% of measures are protection measures, 26% prevention

measures, 24% preparedness, 8% recovery & review, and 1% ‘other’ (including the choice of

“no action”). In Hungary, Luxembourg and Slovakia, the vast majority of measures are

assigned to protection, while in Estonia more than half of the measures are for prevention. It is

also worth noting that Member States reported ‘No Action’ measures

117

As Member States could assign a single measure to more than one measure aspect and measure type, there was

some double-counting when counting the total measures: This occurred in nine Member States.

116

Owing to the distinction between individual and aggregated measures

–

and due to the inherent difficulty in

averaging across measures of a varied nature, charts such as this one are of an illustrative value.

117

“No action” can generally be a management

response to risk, provided the risk is at an acceptable, to the

exposed party, level. In the context of this assessment, several Member State reported “no action” measures. In

France, these included activities to gather information, for example on the resilience of existing infrastructure,

and in Belgium, to delineate the role of different actors in flood management; in the United Kingdom as well,

115

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

8.1. Measurable and specific flood risk management measures (including

location)

Measures are considered specific and measurable if their description is clear in terms of what

they are trying to achieve, where they are to be achieved (and which area their effects will

cover), how they are to be achieved, and by when they are expected to be achieved. This

information will support the monitoring of implementation and the evaluation of their results.

In the FRMPs assessed, more than half of the Member States considered provided all or most

of these elements in their measure descriptions. Many Member States list measures in tables

that specify fields such as: location, implementation timeframe, budget, responsible entity,

indicators for monitoring progress. Examples are seen in Member States including Bulgaria,

Finland and Spain (see the box below). In Austria, a catalogue of measures and a background

document provide these elements. In Italy, a detailed table was annexed to the FRMP for the

Eastern Alps (though for other Italian FRMPs assessed, the list of measures contained fewer

fields).

Box 20 - Providing detailed information on measures

The five FRMPs in

Spain

provide information on the location of the measures (some at UoM level,

others at APSFR level and others at a specific location, for example along a river). The FRMPs also

indicate the timeframe for implementation, the budget, the responsible authority and provide indicators

for monitoring progress. Nonetheless, the information tables include some gaps (for example, budgets

are not provided for ongoing measures carried out by authorities). The indicators for the most part

measure the progress of implementation; they do not refer to the impact of measures.

Section 8.2 provides further detail on the location of measures reported by Member States. A

further key dimension is the extent to FRMPs present the links between their measures and

their overall FRMP objectives: This is discussed in Section 8.3.

8.2.

Location

For many kinds of measures, the location will be broad, such as national or UoM scale: This

will be the case, for example, for actions to raise public awareness, initiatives to improve flood

some studies and assessments are listed in this category, but so are some other activities such as wetlands

restoration. In Malta, this was a WISE reporting inaccuracy.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

warning systems and laws or guidance to integrate floods in spatial planning. Other measures

will have specific locations. This will be the case for infrastructure investments as well as

natural water retention measures.

Figure 12

Location of measures reported by Member States

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016 and expert elaboration.

Notes: Compiled from Member States reporting to WISE on location and geographic coverage of

measures. Information reported in the reporting sheets could be aggregated in 18 out of 26

Member States. As the reporting fields were open and Member States followed different

approaches to reporting, results should be considered indicative. “Other” refers to catchment

and local levels in Sweden and the United Kingdom and national level in Romania and Sweden

(although in the case of the latter, the five measures reported at national level should have been

reported at APSFR level).

MS reporting to WISE provides an overview of

where

measures will be achieved. For 18

Member States, it was possible to compile this data (see Figure 12 above)

118

. As shown, eight

of the 18 Member States indicate that all measures are at the level of the whole UoM. This is

118

Member States were asked to report information on the location and geographic coverage of measures in the

Reporting Sheets. The fields were open, and Member States reported in a variety of ways. Many Member

States provided enough information to determine the level of the location, i.e. APSFR or UoM. The figure in

this section is compiled from responses to both questions.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

related in part to the level at which measures are reported. A number of Member States,

including Croatia and Estonia, indicate in their FRMPs that each measure reported can include

multiple actions or projects, which may have more specific locations.

Five Member States indicate that at least 80% of measures are the level of the APSFR (this

includes Germany, which also indicated that its measures will be carried out via individual

projects). Fewer Member States reported more detailed locations: these include Sweden and

the United Kingdom, where around 60% of measures are reported at catchment and local

levels.

For some Member States, more detailed information was found in the FRMPs assessed. One

Member States, Lithuania, has embedded planned infrastructure measures in its FHRMs (see

box below). For the Member States which had measures with locations that could not be easily

aggregated in the graph above, the table below shows the location of measures, with

information taken from the FRMPs and the reporting sheets.

Box 21 - Locating measures on flood maps

Lithuania

has indicated the specific locations for infrastructure measures. Moreover, an interactive,

online map of the FHRMs contains the proposed locations for embankments and the territories they

protect as a layer. The map is available at:

http://vanduo.gamta.lt/cms/index?rubricId=6d87deab-3ecc-

412a-9b66-7fd6361f26ba

(accessed in June 2018).

Table 10

Location of measures reported by Member States (where locations cannot be

apportioned)

✔

119

International

National

RBD/UoM

119

Not all UoM use all locations listed in the table’s lines.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Sub-basin

APSFR or other specific risk area

Water body level

More detailed than water body

Other

✔

119

✔

Sources: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

8.3.

Linking objectives and measures

In the preamble of the FD there is reference to the objective of the Directive, “namely

the

establishment of a framework for measures to reduce the risks of flood damage…”

and in

Article 7(3) to FRMPs including “measures

for achieving the objectives

established…”.

Concretely defining measures and clearly linking these measures to objectives could serve as

an alternative to defining specific objectives, provided the measures are selected and designed

in such way that their completion would result in achieving the objectives set within a

timeframe. Consequently, the relationship between measures and objectives is a key issue.

There should be a clear pathway from objectives to measures, along with an analysis of how

the measures contribute to the objectives. This section draws from the section on objectives

and looks at four elements for this pathway: (1) whether objectives are specific (and thus

measurable); (2) whether the measures are specific (and measurable); (3) if a link is made

between objectives and measures; and finally, (4) whether FRMPs report that there are

mechanisms to indicate if the implementation of measures will ensure the achievement of

objectives.

To recall, section 7.2 of this document indicates that the FRMPs in 12 Member States are to

some degree specific in terms of objectives. The table below assesses Member States in terms

of the specificity of their objectives and their measures: Whether objectives or measures are

general, specific or partially specific

120

. It also indicates if there are clear links reported

between the measures and objectives next to whether it is clear that implementation of the

measures will achieve the objectives.

120

This

overview inevitably involves an aggregation of different Member States approaches: for example, ‘partly

specific’ measures include –

differences across FRMPs assessed, as seen in the United Kingdom; differences

across types of measures, as seen in Romania where measures at APSFR level are specific but not those at

higher levels; and Member States where only some specific information is provided on measures, as in

Estonia.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Table 11

Cyprus

Bulgaria

Belgium

Malta

Sweden

Finland

Latvia

Poland

Objectives, measures - and their links

Objectives

Specific

Partly specific

Specific

Partly specific

General

Measures

Specific

Partly specific

Specific

Partly specific

Specific

Partly specific

Specific

Partly specific

General

Links between

objectives and

measures

Link exists

Link for one FRMP

Link for Brussels

FRMP only

Link clear only for one

case

Link exists

Some of the FRMPs

provide links

Link exists

No clear link

Some of the municipal

FRMPs provide links

Link exists

No clear link

Link exists

No clear link

Link exists

No clear link

United Kingdom, the

Lithuania

Romania

Denmark

Czech Republic, the

Portugal

Slovakia

Hungary

Germany

Slovenia

Austria

Estonia

Spain

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands, the

Croatia

France

Sources: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

As shown in the table, six Member States set specific objectives in their FRMPs, six set

objectives with some specificity, meaning that they may lack location or targets or timescales,

and 14 Member States set general objectives. In terms of measures, the FRMPs in 10 Member

States present specific measures, those in 13 Member States report measures that are partly

specific and those in three Member States present only general measures.

The FRMPs in more than half of Member States, 16, provide some sort of link between their

measures and objectives (in all, eleven Member States, or some, five Member States, of the

FRMPs assessed). In the United Kingdom, the Northern Irish FRMP assessed links each

measure to one or more detailed objectives. Other examples are seen in some Finnish FRMPs,

which have a description for each measure including for which objectives they contribute to

and what flood protection benefits they bring; in one of these FRMPs, there is an analysis

whether each measure contributes to the objectives directly or indirectly through flood

protection benefits: for example, improved flood risk maps contribute indirectly to the public

safety objective. One German FRMP assessed provides graphs showing the percentages of

effectiveness of measures in relation to the four categories of adverse consequences listed in

the Directive (i.e. consequences for human health, economic activity, environment and cultural

heritage).

In some cases, Member States have indicated that further specificity concerning measures will

be developed in separate plans: For example, Austria’s national FRMP contains aggregated

measures comprised of detailed projects and actions elaborated in plans prepared at APSFR

level. Other Member States, e.g. Germany, indicated that these details would be prepared in the

implementation phase.

In three Member States, general objectives are linked to specific measures. One example is

Portugal, described in the box below. Another example is Slovakia, whose FRMPs provide an

assessment of the potential impact of the existing and suggested protection measures in

achieving objectives; however, as the objectives are general, it is not clear if or to what extent

they will be achieved once measures are implemented.

Box 22 - Linking objectives and measures 1

The objectives set in

Portugal

are neither specific nor measurable. For example, four of the five

FRMPs assessed present a nationally set objective to “improve resilience and reduce vulnerability in

areas of possible flooding”. The FRMPs do, however, contain

some information on how the objectives

are to be achieved, as the measures are formulated based on the objectives. The measures are devised

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

considering the following aspects: Harmful consequences to population, economic activities, cultural

sites and protected environmental areas; geographical areas where these are or may be located; reducing

the severity of flooding in the APSFRs.

The five FRMPs assessed include detailed information on measures, referring to their location (either

the whole UoM or other more detailed locations), the implementation timeframe, the budget, the

responsible entity and indicators for management. Almost all measures are specific and measurable. An

annex contains tables where, for each measure, the strategic and operational objective it aims to tackle

is identified. Although the measures are connected to the objectives, the indicators for the measures do

not have quantified targets to be achieved and do not quantify how much measures can contribute to the

fulfilment of objectives.

Of the 12 Member States that report some specificity in their objectives, three

–

Bulgaria (in

one FRMP), Cyprus and Lithuania

–

report specific measures and nine have partially specific

measures. The example of Cyprus is presented in the box below.

Box 23 - Linking objectives and measures 2

The FRMP in

Cyprus

has specific objectives setting out “what” and “where”: The first objective aims

to reduce the hazard of floods with a 20-year chance of occurrence in already developed areas and new

areas

under development. Each objective is then linked to two or more “priority action fields” that

describe “how” each objective is to be achieved. Thus, the objectives are, for the most part, specific and

measurable.

Further, for all 38 measures, the Programme

of Measures indicates “what”, “where”, “how” and

“when” for each measure: There is a detailed description of what each measure is aiming to achieve,

where exactly, when and how is going to be implemented: the area and target year of implementation,

the processes/technical methods to be used and the competent authorities in charge. Finally, each

measure is clearly linked to an objective:



24 measures, all for protection, are linked to hazard reduction (63% of the total 38 measures);

11 measures (two prevention, one protection, five preparedness and three recovery and review)

are linked to vulnerability reduction (29% of measures);

Three measures (two prevention and one protection) are linked to the limitation of exposure to

floods (8%)



kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Finally, the FRMPs in only three Member States provide some indication that the

implementation of their measures would result in achieving the objectives: Indeed, this is seen,

only partially, in three Member States. In Bulgaria, the FRMP for the West Aegean UoM

(BG4000) reports information about the expected results and indicators for tracking both

implementation progress and progress towards achieving the objectives of each measure. In

Poland, the objectives do not include specific targets; however, background reports to the

FRMP provide some explanation by how much many individual projects will contribute to

objectives, for example, the expected increase in water retention on agricultural land. In

Sweden, some of the FRMPs assessed set ‘measure-oriented’ objectives, such

as the

establishment of cooperation on flow regulation for smaller streams (found in the Falun

FRMP); some set ‘knowledge’ objectives –

for example, detailed information on flow levels

that can lead to serious flooding consequences for cultural heritage (in the Karlstad FRMP).

These objectives should be achieved when the related measures are carried out.

Overall, however, FRMPs lack clarity on how objectives would be met and if measures were

sufficient to achieve objectives. For many Member States, objectives are not specific or

measurable and often, the measures are not specific or measurable either. Further, less than

half of Member States provide a link between objectives and measures in the FRMPs assessed.

8.4.

Prioritisation of the measures

The Annex to the FD states that FRMPs should indicate the prioritisation of measures. Across

the 23 Member States that reported on the priority of their measures on a five point scale

121

patterns varied (see Figure 13 below). In France, almost half of all measures are indicated as

being of critical priority. Austria, Bulgaria and Spain indicated that over 20% of their measures

were of critical priority, but others had smaller shares of critical priority measures. A set of

eight Member States

–

the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg,

Poland and Slovenia

– identified more than half of their measures as having “very high”

priority. Another group, including Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Malta and the Netherlands,

indicated that more than half of their measures were of “high” priority.

121

According to the FD’s Reporting Guidance, Member States could either report on the

priority on a five-point

scale (low, moderate, high, very high, critical and no information) or report the timetable of their measures. Of

the 26 Member States that reported, 23 provided information on the priority of their measures, and 11 of these

also reported on the timetable. In addition, some Member States only assigned measures to three of these five

levels of priority. For a few Member States, however, there were differences across UoMs, with some UoMs

reporting information on priorities and others not.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Most of the Member States indicated that their measures fell into the higher categories of

priority. Ten of the 23 Member States reporting on priority by means of a scale indicated more

than 80% of their measures were in one the three highest categories of priority (critical, very

high and high priority): The Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg,

the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and Spain. Another seven Member States indicated that

between 50% and 80% of their measures were in one of these three categories: Belgium,

Denmark, Finland, France, Malta, Portugal and Sweden.

Two Member States reported all measures with the same priority: Luxembourg as

‘very high’

and Hungary as ‘moderate’. For Luxembourg, Member States authorities subsequently

indicated that this was a reporting oversight. Hungarian authorities noted that all 46 measures

are planned to be completed by 2021 with no specific prioritisation, and thus all were reported

as moderate. Two Member States reported 90% or more of their measures in one category,

Croatia as moderate priority and the Netherlands as high priority

122

Figure 13

Prioritisation of measures reported by Member States

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016.

122

In the Netherlands, flood prevention has the utmost priority, hence all measures have received at least priority

“high”, with the exception of one “medium” measure regarding a “water test” of spatial planning proposals via

a consultative process.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Notes: Data shown for the 23 Member States that reported on the priorities of their measures (Cyprus,

Romania, and Slovakia did not report on this, only on the timetable of their measures).

On average, 9% of the measures reported by each Member State were of critical priority; 32%

were of very high priority; 28% of high priority, 21% of moderate priority and 8% of low

priority. When looking at different aspects of flood management, the priorities assigned within

prevention, protection and preparedness measures are roughly similar, while recovery and

review measures were assigned lower priority (see Figure 14 below).

Figure 14

Priority of measures across the aspects of flood management

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016.

Notes: The figure shows shares by measure aspect and by level of priority: The total across all aspects

(including “other”) is 100%. Shares based on the average for each Member State. “No action”

measures not included. The information is based on the 23 Member States reporting priorities for

their measures (consequently, Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia are not included).

8.4.1. Methods for prioritisation

In about two-thirds of the Member States assessed (18

123

out of 26), the FRMPs or other

documents provided information on the methods used for the prioritisation

124

. In all these

cases, some sort of a multi-criteria assessment was used.

123

124

For the United Kingdom, this was only the case for some of the FRMPs assessed.

In both Cyprus and Romania information was not reported in the reporting sheets for each individual measure,

but information from the FRMPs was used in this section.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Among these criteria, 13 of the 18 Member States used some assessment of the effectiveness of

measures: In Bulgaria, one of the criteria is the “extent of problem solving”, including

how

effective is the measure in achieving objectives; Germany and Cyprus also include the

effectiveness of the measure in reaching overall and specific aims. Other Member States,

including Latvia, Italy (for some of the FRMPs assessed), Belgium (Wallonia), and Slovakia,

assessed the number of inhabitants, polluting facilities, cultural heritage sites or protected areas

addressed by the measures. In England, public investments in flood and coastal risk

management works identified based on Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs

(DEFRA) policy and Environment Agency guidance are prioritised.

Box 24 - A three-step process for prioritising measures

In the Walloon Region of

Belgium,

measures were prioritised in three steps: First, a multicriteria

analysis of the measures; second, an analysis of the results of this prioritisation and, eventually,

adaptation by stakeholders within technical committees by sub-basin; and third, validation of

prioritization by the coordination team, the Transversal Floods Group (Groupe

Transversal

Inondations).

The multicriteria analysis took into consideration the following criteria:



human health (number of people affected);

economic activities at risks;

synergies identified with other water management plans, including the RBMPs and plans for

economic activities, e.g. transport on water and related infrastructure;

environmental aspects (synergies or conflicts of interest) and

cultural aspects.

Over half of the Member States that provided information on methods for prioritisation (11 of

the 18) refer to an assessment of costs and benefits, including via CBA (see chapter 10 for

further information on the consideration of costs and benefits). In Wales the cost-benefit

analysis is included alongside the risk calculation from the Communities at Risk Register, a

tool that considers a number of factors to indicate the most vulnerable communities at risk of

floods. A similar number (nine of the 18) include a criterion that is related to the WFD: Austria

refers to the relevance of measures for the WFD and Estonia refers more generally to

beneficial links for the implementation of other EU legislation, in particular the WFD.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

A few Member States

–

five

125

of the 18 Member States that refer to costs and benefits

–

include elements of feasibility:

For example, Germany refers to ‘implementability’ as a

criterion, including time, resources, planning process, financing and public acceptability; the

United Kingdom (Scotland), Cyprus, Croatia, Poland and Portugal refer to the availability of

finance. Among other criteria, only one Member State assessed, Austria

126

, explicitly included

adaptation to climate change among the criteria

127

Several Member States indicated a link between the timetable and the prioritisation of

measures: In four of Portugal’s

FRMPs, one of the criteria for the prioritisation of measures is

for measures that can be undertaken during the current cycle. This was also seen in

Luxembourg, where an aim was to present measures that could be implemented in the short

term. In Belgium (Brussels region), an overall timetable of measures is linked to their priority:

Priority 1 measures should be implemented in the first years of the Plan (2016-2017), Priority

2 measures in 2018-2019; and the implementation of Priority 3 measures should start by 2021

(2020-2021).

8.4.2. Timetable

Fourteen Member States reported on the timetable of their measures. For those Member States

reporting information on the timetable of their measures, most measures are to be implemented

within the current FRMP cycle, 2016 to 2021 (see Figure 15 below). A few Member States

–

including Belgium, Latvia and Sweden

–

reported measures as ongoing: these ongoing

measures include early warning systems and administrative actions underway and without a

completion date. Romanian FRMPs state that almost all measures should be implemented by

2021, but measures involving major works that start between 2016 and 2021 will only be

completed by 2027, while in Malta, three measures are scheduled to be completed in 2017,

2018, and 2019 respectively, with the remaining seven measures to be continued throughout

the 2

cycle.

A small number of Member States reported both the priority of their measures and the

timetable

–

Belgium, Lithuania and Sweden

–

and as noted above, all indicated that more than

half of their measures were of critical priority.

125

126

In the case of United Kingdom, only Scotland.

Cyprus did not report the prioritisation of measures in the reporting sheet, however, the FRMP states that an

initial assessment of measures was based on several criteria, including adaptation to climate change.

127

Both Croatia’s and Cyprus’ FRMPs stated that climate change was considered as a criterion for the

prioritisation of measures, however, neither of these Member States reported prioritisation in their reporting

sheets.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Figure 15

Timetable reported for measures

Source: WISE electronic reports and expert elaboration.

Notes: Fourteen Member States reported on the timetable of their measures. Of these, Romania and

Cyprus both indicated 2016-2021 as the timetable for all measures; Slovakia, 2021; and for

Estonia, Finland, Poland, Portugal, and Spain, no aggregation was possible due to the large

number of different responses. For Italy, the figure only represents those Italian UoMs that

reported information on the timetable of their measures.

8.5.

Responsible authorities

MS were requested to report the authority responsible for each measure. The aggregated data

show that in a majority of Member States where data is available

128

, national and municipal

authorities were responsible for measures (see Figure 16). Many Member States identified

regional authorities, and a few identified specialised bodies such as civil protection authorities

in Austria and Slovenia, local flood authorities (in the United Kingdom) and water companies.

In Belgium, unclassified water courses are managed by local residents.

128

Member States could report either the name of the responsible authority or the level of responsibility. Both

were open fields; the entries were aggregated to the extent possible.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Figure 16

Authorities identified for the implementation of measures

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

Notes: Regional authorities can include, depending on the Member State, provincial and district

authorities. Catchment authorities refer to water management authorities below the UoM level.

Member States also often reported more than one responsible authority.

Most Member States reported more than one responsible authority for their measures, in some

cases reporting several authorities per measure: The box below presents the approach in

Estonia. In Italy, another example, about two-thirds of measures are implemented by regional

authorities, about one-sixth by municipalities and the remainder by others, including civil

protection authorities, water service operators and (for about 1% of measures), national bodies;

however, the number of measures assigned to the various types of authorities varies greatly

across Italy’s UoMs.

Box 25 - Authorities responsible for measures

Estonia,

each action has a main authority directly responsible for its implementation; for many

actions, additional authorities support the main one. In most cases the main authority is either at

national level

–

a Ministry or a public authority under a Ministry

–

or at municipal level. In few cases

the implementing authority is the owner of a facility. As examples:

•

Local municipalities are responsible for actions related to construction or restoration of

public water supply systems, spatial planning and obligations and activities under the

Building Act.

For preparedness for emergency situations, each local municipality is the main authority and

the Rescue Board (a national body that coordinates of emergency work and response,

including for fires, floods and snow storms), the additional authority.

•

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

•

For natural water retention measures such as buffer strips, in most cases the local

municipality is the main authority and the land owner the additional authority.

The national Environmental Inspectorate is the main authority for actions related to

supervision of protection of environment and consequently for supervision of actions to

address pollution risks from industrial plants and agriculture during floods.

The Health Board is the main authority for a mapping action to establish and periodically

update a list of enterprises in each APSFR that use, process or produce hazardous chemicals.

The Environmental Board is the authority that supports this action.

A few FRMPs present a division of labour. In England (the United Kingdom), the

Environment Agency is responsible for most protection measures while Lead Local Flood

Authorities (local authorities given responsibilities for flood management) are responsible for

the majority of recovery and review measures. In Portugal, the FRMPs for mainland UoMs

explain that national authorities are responsible for larger, more expensive measures and local

authorities for smaller measures.

In contrast, a few Member States indicate that a single authority is responsible for most

measures: in Slovakia, the Ministry of Environment is responsible for 99% of all measures. In

Malta, while the national Energy and Water Agency is responsible for all measures, the FRMP

lists government bodies and stakeholders that would need to be engaged for each measure (see

the box below).

Box 26 - Engaging government and other stakeholders in implementation

Malta’s

FRMP indicates, for each measure, the government and other stakeholders that would need to

be involved in the process. For example, the measure "Modelling the impact of the National Flood

Relief Project on flood hazard and risk in identified catchments" identifies eight government bodies,

including: the Environment and Resources Authority; the Eco-Gozo Regional Development Directorate

within the Ministry for Gozo; the Marine, Storm Water and Valley Management Unit within the

Ministry for Transport and Infrastructure.

8.6.

Progress of implementation

All 26 Member States assessed indicated the progress of implementation of their measures. On

average, 49% of the measures in each Member State were reported as not started, closely

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

followed by ‘progress ongoing’, 42% of measures; a further 6% of the measures were reported

as ongoing construction and 2% as completed

129

The levels reported vary across the Member States. In eight Member States

–

Bulgaria,

Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Luxembourg and Cyprus

–

over 80% of

measures were reported as not started. For five others

–

Belgium, The Czech Republic,

Portugal, Sweden and Italy

–

over 60% had not been started (see Figure 17 below). In contrast,

12 of the 26 Member States reported over half of their measures as either ‘progress ongoing’ or

‘ongoing construction’

130

Figure 17

Progress of implementation of measures

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Many Member States reported in 2016, or in 2017, so these results should not reflect current (late 2018)

progress.

130

According to the Reporting Guidance for the FD, “Construction on-going” means the construction or building

works have started but are not finalized”

129

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Looking at the progress of measures by measure aspect (based on an average across Member

States

131

), a somewhat larger share of ‘preparedness’ measures were in progress ongoing or

ongoing construction compared to other aspects of flood risk management; a somewhat larger

share of protection measures had not been started (see Figure 18).

Figure 18

Progress of implementation of measures by aspect of flood risk management

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016.

Notes: The figure shows shares by measure aspect and by progress of implementation: the total across

all aspects (including other) is 100%. Shares based on the average for all

26 Member States. “no

action” measures not included.

8.7.

Measures taken under other Community Acts

In its Annex, the FD calls for FRMPs to include measures taken under other Community Acts,

including the WFD, the EIA Directive

132

, the SEA Directive

133

and the Seveso Directive

134

. 12

131

For each Member State it was calculated which percentage of which measure aspect was completed, ongoing

construction, progress ongoing, and not started. This was then averaged across all Member States

–

for

example, an average of the percentage of all completed prevention measures, all completed protection

measures, all completed preparedness measures etc.

132

Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment

of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment Text with EEA relevance (replacing

Directive 85/337/EEC).

133

Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the

effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

of the 26 Member States assessed reported other Community Acts which were relevant to the

reported measures. Of those Member States that did report this information, most referenced

the WFD but not other Directives (see relevant section for more information on coordination

with the WFD).

Member States provided further information in the FRMPs. Several Member States referred to

the EIA and SEA Directives, mainly to note that some of their measures would undergo an

EIA or that the FRMPs as a whole underwent an SEA procedure (see relevant section). FRMPs

in eight of the 26 Member States assessed refer to the Seveso Directive: for example, in

Germany, technical guidelines to address rainfall and flooding at Seveso installations had been

developed. In Italy, two FRMPs assessed

135

include the protection of Seveso installations

among their objectives and a third FRMP

136

sets out an indicator related to Seveso

installations. Romania includes an indicator for its objective to minimise flood risks on

potentially polluting sites (see section on objectives).

8.8.

Inclusion of specific groups of measures

8.8.1. Spatial planning and land use

Article 191 of the Lisbon Treaty defines the objectives that Union policy on the environment

shall contribute to, including preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the

environment and protecting human health. According to Article 192 of the Treaty, the

European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative

procedure, decide what action is to be taken by the Union in order to achieve the objectives

referred to in Article 191. Measures affecting town and country planning and land use are not

exempted, however, there is a derogation from the ordinary legislative procedure and the

Council should act unanimously

137

The FD states that FRMPs should take into account spatial planning and land use and include

‘the promotion of sustainable land use practices (Article 7(3)). The subject of spatial planning

has been discussed in workshops organised by the WGF on two occasions as an element of

134

Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-

accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive

96/82/EC Text with EEA relevance.

135

For the ITA RBD (Eastern Alps) and the Abruzzo and Sangro UoMs (ITI023 and ITR131).

136

For the ITE RBD (Central Apennines).

137

For the precise wording please see

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E191:EN:HTML

and

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E192:EN:HTML

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

flood risk management. The following passages provide the summary of the two workshops’

reference to spatial planning, which took place seven years apart. Comparing the two, one

concludes there is progress, with gaps remaining.

“…[I]t

became obvious that there are gaps in coordinating land-use

planning and flood risk

management, caused chiefly by the assignment of responsibility to several parties, differing

planning standards, and different legal bases. Changes in the legal situation (stronger

legislative basis for spatial planning), better funding, as well as improved information,

communication and cooperation were considered to be the key elements for success.”

138

“Since

2007, several Member States improved their acts and rules, for increasing the

coordination between spatial planning and flood risk management, but in the most of the

countries, it is necessary to improve them, because there are still some gaps. The FRMPs

include measures to improve this coordination, being one of the group of measures more

important.”

139

The conclusion immediately above is supported by the findings of a survey conducted amongst

the 28 Member States in 2016 where 12 Member States indicated that the FD had a positive

impact on coordination in flood related spatial planning matters

140

As a result, the FRMPs of all the Member States assessed

141

make reference to spatial planning

and land use

142

; however, the extent of information varies and not all FRMPs include measures

in this area.

In five of the 26 Member States assessed did the FRMPs provide information on the

approaches used in current land use and spatial planning legislation to address flood risk.

Examples include Luxembourg, where the national Water Law prohibits new building

developments

in flood risk areas. Latvia’s FRMPs report that national legislation bans

CIS WGF “Flood Management in Local Planning” workshop report, Bad Radkersburg/AT and Gornja

Radgona/SI, April 2008,

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/1be90c02-9de4-4daa-a2ae-0546700c4567

139

CIS WGF “Coastal Flooding and Spatial Planning” workshop report, 22 and 23 October 2015, Zurbano Palace

Madrid, Spain,

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/b5450ce2-09b6-461b-88e2-647d21a9047b

140

“Flood Risk Management in the EU and the FD's 1

Cycle of Implementation (2009-15), a questionnaire

based report”. This is a product of WGF 19’s workshop (14-15

April 2016, Vienna, Austria), the document

was endorsed by the EU Water Directors at their meeting in Malta in June 2017, available at:

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/ec110327-9521-468f-b6b8-cc32b1245c3c

141

None

of Malta’s ten measures explicitly refer to spatial planning or land use for addressing flood risks.

However, one measure includes spatial planning aspects

–

the adoption of Sustainable Urban Drainage

Systems (SUDS) in planning.

142

Different types of urban planning:

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/building-competitive-cities-

technical-working-paper/page6.html#footnote-80

138

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

construction in river flood plains with a 10% yearly probability of flooding. Slovenia’s 2002

Water Law prohibits construction that would increase flood risks (though where urbanisation is

allowed, protection and compensation actions must be taken).

Measures for spatial planning and land use were identified in the FRMPs of 23 of the 26

Member States reporting. The most common area for measures is for new spatial planning and

land use restrictions or bans on construction in flood-risk areas: This is seen in 16 of the 23

Member States assessed that have spatial planning and land use measures. In some cases, this

involves binding rules: As an example, all five Portuguese FRMPs assessed include a measure

for the demarcation of areas of high probability of flooding (T = 20 years): in these areas,

construction will be prohibited. In addition, adjacent zones corresponding to areas with a low

probability of flooding occurrence (T

–

100 years) will also be demarcated: Here, construction

will be restricted. In other cases, the measures refer to guidance: For example, the FRMP for

Falun in Sweden includes a measure to develop a guidance document for planning in proximity

of flood-prone rivers.

In seven of the 26 Member States, FRMPs include measures to relocate economic activities

and properties away from flood-risk zones: One example is in Poland (see the box below).

FRMPs in four Member States include measures for the preparation of guidelines on spatial

planning and land use in flood risk areas: Denmark, Italy, Poland and Spain. In Croatia, there

is a measure for public education on the need for land-use restrictions and restriction of

activities in flood prone areas.

Box 27 - Measures to relocate buildings and facilities from flood risk areas

The FRMPs in

Poland

include the following measures:



Analysis of the possibility of removal, change of use and modernization of facilities located

in the specific flood zones, along with the analysis of purchase options;

Analysis of conditions for relocation of buildings from areas of particular flood threat;

Plans for resettlement and purchase of properties located in specific areas;

Development of a buy-out and resettlement program in areas particularly exposed to

flooding;

Analysis of land management behind flood embankments and in inter-embankment areas to

prevent an increase of flood hazards.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

8.8.2. Nature based solutions, including NWRM

The FD states the FRMPs shall take into account “…areas

which

have the potential to retain

flood water, such as natural floodplains…”

and that they may include the “…improvement

water retention…”

(Article 7(3)). In the preamble, the FD asks FRMPs to “consider

where

possible the maintenance and/or restoration of

floodplains…”

The information compiled from the Member States indicate that all 26 assessed

143

include the

notion of nature based solutions or a subset of these, NWRM, in some or all of their FRMPs.

The number of NWRM per Member States, however, varies significantly. At one end of the

scale, NWRM make up about 90% of Luxembourg’s 813 individual measures; Austria’s

FRMP states that NWRM are ongoing or planned in 96 APSFRs, completed in 32 APSFRs,

and foreseen in the next implementation cycle in 200 APSFRs. Slovakia has included 520

measures under type M31 for natural flood management

144

: NWRM make up almost 40% of

Slovakia’s 1 413 measures, and opportunities for these types of measures were identified

through modelling (see the box below).

Box 28 - Modelling to identify NWRM opportunities

Slovakia,

a theoretical analysis of the impact of measures was carried out for each APSFR. This

modelling was used to identify sub-catchments with a potential for improved natural water retention

using landscape and ecological measures, for example in agricultural areas and for forests.

The FRMPs present a range of nature based solutions. Plans in at least 11 Member States call

for the restoration of natural river characteristics

–

in Bulgaria, for example, there are measures

for the re-meandering of rivers. In at least three Member States, Bulgaria, Lithuania, and

Romania (see the box below), measures include afforestation. Sustainable urban drainage

systems (SuDS) are included in the FRMPs in Poland, Malta and the United Kingdom.

Box 29 - Nature based solutions

143

144

In Cyprus a number of measures relate to water retention, however, the actual use of NWRM is limited or is

not presented in an explicit way. In Malta, one measure includes NWRM aspects

–

the adoption of Sustainable

Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). In Sweden, spatial planning measures are only found in some FRMPs,

notably, two that were not selected for assessment

Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the flow into

natural or artificial drainage systems, such as overland flow interceptors and / or storage, enhancement of

infiltration, etc. and including in-channel, floodplain works and the reforestation of banks, that restore natural

systems to help slow flow and store water.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Croatia,

the national FRMP sets out measures for nature based solutions, including the incorporation

of water retention and wetland areas in spatial planning, encouraging flood solutions involving

wetlands, former floodplains, meadows and pastures and the restoration of alluvial forests, and

promoting public awareness on natural water retention.

Romania,

the five FRMPs assessed all include nature based solutions related to forest management

in flood risk areas. Several FRMPs include other types of nature based solutions, including the

following:



Creation of new wetlands (Someș-Tisa

FRMP, RO9);

Restoration of natural river banks (vegetative protection), Someș-Tisa

FRMP

Reconnection and restoration of flood plains (Someș-Tisa

and Prut-Bârlad, RO11, FRMPs);

Re-meandering of water courses (Prut-Bârlad FRMP).

Whereas some of the measures foresee investment in nature based solutions, others involve

preparatory studies and related work. For example, Poland’s FRMPs include measures to

develop guidelines and the

identification of ‘priority areas for re-naturalisation

in river valleys,

with particular reference to wetlands’. At the same time, the FRMPs for both the Vistula and

Oder UoMs in Poland note restrictions to the use of NWRMs, as existing infrastructure make it

difficult to effectively use flood plains in the event of a flood.

Across all Member States, there was very little reference to ecosystem services

– in Croatia’s

reporting sheet, there was reference in the context of taking such services into consideration

during flood extent control as part of ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction.

8.8.3. Measures that consider nature conservation

The FD also states that FRMPs should consider nature conservation (Article 7(3)). To a great

extent, nature based solutions (including NWRMs) address this area. In Spain, for example, the

description of measures for river restoration refer specifically to Natura 2000 sites.

Beyond nature based solutions, however, few FRMPs assessed refer to measures that explicitly

address nature conservation. One example is seen in Italy: The FRMP for Puglia and the

Ofanto RB includes measures for the protection of vegetation and analysis of the impact of

structural measures on the environment. In Belgium one FRMP assessed contains a flood risk

measure where nature conservation is clearly stated: A measure on river restoration.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

A few FRMPs explain how nature conservation issues are considered in the selection of

measures: In Latvia, for example, the location and design of dykes was selected taking into

account the location of Natura 2000 sites, the needs of animal migration and protection of flora

and soil; the design will seek to integrate dykes into the natural landscape. In Sweden several

FRMPs indicate that nature conservation was considered in the development of measures.

8.8.4. Measures concerning navigation and port infrastructure

The FD also calls for FRMPs to consider navigation and port infrastructure. Few FRMPs had

measures that addressed this area: These were clearly seen in only five of the 26 Member

States assessed, and even here, in few measures. In Estonia, for example, there is a specific

action to prevent flood-related

pollution originating from ports. Hungary’s FRMP includes a

measure for the reconstruction of a lock. In Belgium, one FRMP assessed stated that shipping

on the river is taken into consideration, while another FRMP assessed does not include a

specific measure on navigation, but has at least one measure that is related indirectly:

Optimising the shipping canal in Brussels for receiving run-off water.

In other Member States, including Bulgaria, Denmark and Germany, measures to protect

critical infrastructure may include ports and navigation. The plans in at least five Member

States

–

Finland, the Netherlands Poland, Italy

145

, and Spain

–

make a general reference to

navigation and ports, but measures in this area where not identified.

8.8.5. Dredging

Dredging is not mentioned in the FD. It is considered in certain areas of the EU and elsewhere

as a tool for flood control; in isolation, however, without considering the river basin wide

situation in terms of sediments, it does not appear to address sustainably wider catchment flood

risk. It can also have negative effects on the ecology of a river, e.g. through the removal of fish

spawning sites, which puts at risk economically important species like the salmon.

Consequently, dredging may negatively affect the potential for common benefits between the

FD and the WFD (see section 9.10 below) and its use should be considered along other

parameters.

145

The FRMP for Puglia and Ofanto (ITR161I020) mentions port infrastructure among the factors considered.

Italy also clarified that the FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto includes ports in the strategic infrastructure addressed for

risk reduction. Within the analysis of the port infrastructure, actions for the reduction of coastal erosion are

considered as a reduction factor of the risk of the flood from the sea.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

The FRMPs in at least seven Member States include measures for dredging of rivers to

increase the river channel capacity and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation

purposes.

Examples are seen in Finland, where the FRMP for Kokemäenjoki contains two measures:

“dredging of existing river channels in the centre of the port” and “mowing and dredging of the

estuary of the Kokemäki river in Pihlavanlahti Bay”. All five FRMPs assessed for Portugal

include measures for dredging as part of a strategy for removing silt in river channels.

In a further six Member States, the FRMPs include measures that could potentially include

dredging. In Bulgaria, for example, there are measures for cleaning river beds and ensuring the

capacity and ability of the river channel to convey water. Similarly, in the Czech Republic,

Hungary and Slovakia, there are measures to increase or maintain the river channel capacity. In

Austria, it was subsequently explained that navigation, port infrastructure and dredging were

implicitly incorporated into a national measure on maintenance of protection and mitigation

measures, river maintenance. A measure on increasing the river channel capacity and its ability

to convey water for flood mitigation in Germany (found in all UoMs) can be assumed to

involve dredging.

8.8.6. Insurance and other economic instruments

The subject of disaster insurance, a way to share and transfer risk, has been considered at the

EU level in the past. In 2013 a Green Paper on the insurance of Natural and Man-made

Disasters was published and a public consultation took place

146

. More recently, in 2017, a

study report titled “Insurance

of weather and climate related disaster risk: Inventory and

analysis of mechanisms to support damage prevention in the EU”

147

was published. One of the

findings was that whereas on the whole (across extreme weather events), insurance at

affordable rates is available in the countries studied

148

, there is less success in providing

incentives for risk reduction at the level of the policy holder. Build-back-better requirements,

as a standard element of insurance contracts, is one of the recommendations put forward.

146

147

http://ec.europa.eu/finance/consultations/2013/disasters-insurance/index_en.htm

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4f366956-a19e-11e7-b92d-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en

148

The countries studied were: Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary, Austria, Poland,

Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Although insurance is not mentioned in the FD

149

, in more than half of the Member States

assessed (15 out of 26), at least some FRMPs in each Member State include measures related

to insurance. Relatively speaking, the number of measures in this area, however, appears to be

small and information regarding the role of insurance is not provided consistently across the

Member States.

Still, the FRMPs in several Member States refer to current national insurance systems: For

example, the National Joint Insurance Compensation Agreement and the National Entity for

Agrarian Insurance in Spain (the five FRMPs assessed refer only to insurance of agriculture,

however). Several municipal FRMPs in Denmark mention the Danish Storm Council, a

national insurance mechanism

150

. It was pointed out by Sweden and Belgium that insurance is

a national competency, and thus is not covered in the FRMPs, which are prepared at a

subnational level. In Belgium a national law on insurance (2014) gives insurance companies

the right to refuse coverage for properties in flood risk zones

Some Member States included specific measures to set up or improve insurance schemes

capable of providing cover for flood victims. In Austria, one measure mentions the

development of insurance schemes that provide better coverage. In Germany as well, measures

call for the development of insurance schemes, here specifically for the private and business

sectors. In Lithuania, flood insurance is not currently available and the FRMP includes a

measure to revise national legislation on flood damage compensation mechanisms. In the

United Kingdom, the FRMP for the Neagh Bann UoM in Northern Ireland includes two

measures: One is “to work with

the insurance industry to assist them in introducing 'FloodRe'

to NI to help address long term flood insurance affordability issues”. In Portugal a Recovery

measure foresees a national legislative proposal that will provide a framework for insurance in

flood-prone areas. In Romania, there is one national level measure in each of the assessed

FRMPs that is for the design of regulations regarding the insurance system for buildings

situated in potential flooding areas

151

, while in Slovenia, two projects for each sub-basin deal

with establishing a scheme of subsidising of insurance premiums.

149

In a survey carried out amongst the 28 Member States in 2016, seven Member States indicated that the

introduction of the FD had an influence on insurance policy. Source: “Flood Risk Management in the EU and

the FD's 1

Cycle of Implementation (2009-15),

a questionnaire based report”, available at:

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/ec110327-9521-468f-b6b8-cc32b1245c3c

150

A national insurance scheme exists in France as well.

151

A Romanian law already requires all owners of dwellings (natural or legal persons) to have insurance against

earthquakes, landslides and floods. The law has been in force since 2010.

100

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

In few Member States

–

including Bulgaria, Cyprus, Luxembourg, and Slovenia

152

–

FRMPs

include measures to raise awareness of insurance schemes. The FRMP for Cyprus, for

example, contains two measures: One to raise awareness of insurance, including in local

authorities, and the other to promote the use of flood insurance.

The FRMPs in a few Member States identify insurance companies as possible funding sources:

For example, in Estonia it is stated that these companies may fund flood relief actions. Finally,

hardly any reference was found to other economic instruments for flood risk management. One

example was found in Northern Ireland: a measure for a Homeowner Flood Protection Grant

Scheme to support households and communities in enhancing the resistance of properties to

flooding.

8.9.

Monitoring progress in implementation

The Annex to the FD states that FRMPs should describe “…the

way in which progress in

implementing the plan will be monitored”.

For the Member States assessed, many FRMPs provide some information on the monitoring

processes to be followed, though for many the description is not detailed. In some Member

States, such as Croatia, it is not clear if monitoring is specifically for FRMP progress, or if it is

integrated into WFD/RBMP monitoring.

The FRMPs in at least 12 Member States nonetheless describe

indicators

to be used in

monitoring: this is seen, for example, in Bulgaria (see the box below) and Lithuania. In Italy,

the FRMP for the Central Apennines sets out a list of indicators to be used, while other Italian

FRMPs assessed do not. In Slovenia, seven steps of implementation for each construction

project is set out, however, non-construction measures do not have clear targets and/or

indicators. In France, several FRMPs explain that indicators to follow the implementation of

the Plan will be identified early in the implementation cycle on the basis of the indicators set

out in the national strategy for flood risk management (the strategy identifies a set of indicators

to be used to follow the progress of its implementation and that of the FRMPs and lower-level

plans that address flood risk)

Box 30 - Indicators to track measures

Bulgaria,

an Annex of the West Aegean FRMP (BG4000) provides two types of indicators for

152

As well as an operational objective in the Walloon FRMPs in Belgium.

101

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

each measure:



Indicators for tracking the progress of implementation (e.g. number of initiatives, number of

normative documents, number of inspections) and

Indicators for tracking progress towards achieving the objectives (e.g. fewer number of

people impacted by floods, improved administrative capacity for FRM, better protection for

the life and health of the population in APSFRs, better protection of critical infrastructure or

environment).

The FRMPs in at least eight Member States

153

set out quantitative

baselines

for monitoring

progress: This is the case in Spain, where baselines include, as an example, kilometres of

coastline already mapped for flood risk. In Romania, the expected value for the year 2021 was

established for each monitoring indicator, which is compared to the reference year 2015.

While only about one-third of Member States referred to a baseline in their FRMPs, the PFRA

and FHRM results of the 1

cycle could be used to identify or develop a baseline (e.g. in terms

of population or cultural heritage already effectively protected from a 100-year flood)

154

. This

approach will be followed in the Czech Republic (see the box below). In Luxembourg, the

FHRMs are referred to as baselines against which the FRMP and its measures will be assessed,

while in Slovenia the results of the PFRA are used as the baseline. In Poland, although there is

not a specific reference to the FHRMs, the baseline is determined based on the level of flood

protection prior to the development of the FRMP.

Box 31 - Using FHRMs to assess the effectiveness of FRMP measures

the Czech Republic,

the effectiveness of measures under the FRMPs will be evaluated in all

APSFRs through an analysis of FHRMs at the end of the flood risk management planning period. The

original FHRMs will be used as the baseline. The analysis will consider the following criteria: 1)

change in areas at unacceptable risk, 2) change of the number of population at unacceptable risk, 3)

change of the number of constructions (objects) at unacceptable risk, 4) individual assessment of

vulnerable objects, 5) change of the number of updated municipal flood action plans, 6) change of the

number of local urban plans (or change in their quality), 7) change in the number of flood warning sites,

8) change of the number of the municipalities with flood warning systems.

153

154

In the case of Denmark, this was for most of the FRMPs assessed.

Austria, for example, subsequently explained that the baseline will be the status in 2015, the date of the first

FRMP. Progress will be assessed against the state of the implementation and against the FHRMs.

102

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

A few FRMPs indicate the

timeframes

for progress monitoring reports

–

for example in

Slovenia, a report is to be published every two years, while in Flanders (Belgium) a monitoring

programme is executed on a yearly basis

155

. In Italy, some FRMPs state that yearly monitoring

reports, drawing on information provided by regional bodies are produced. In Romania,

progress is reported annually to the Inter-Ministerial Council for Waters. In the Netherlands,

the FRMP explains that regional water authorities and national water authorities have to report

on the progress of their tasks (once a year) and on the progress of large programmes (twice a

year). The Dutch Delta Commission makes a yearly report on progress under the Delta

Programme. In Sweden, the FRMPs are monitored on a yearly basis.

Other Member States, including Estonia and Lithuania, refer to monitoring points in the middle

and end of the FRMP cycle, while Croatia requires the competent authority to report on the

implementation of the FRMP after the first half of the planning period and in the next FRMP.

In Belgium reporting is done in 2017 and 2019. In both Latvia and Luxembourg, on the other

hand, monitoring timeframes are set on the basis of individual measures.

In terms of actors, several FRMPs state that the

competent authority

for the implementation of

measures is responsible for monitoring progress. In Finland, flood groups that bring together

public bodies and private stakeholders will contribute to monitoring. In Malta it is stated in the

report sheets that an Inter-Ministerial Committee on Water will be established to monitor the

implementation of both WFD and FD measures. While the responsibilities of the Committee

are outlined, it is not explained how the progress is measured or evaluated. In Belgium

(Flanders) the Water Execution Programme is a monitoring body responsible for annual

monitoring of progress while in Brussels the Brussels Institute for Environmental Management

coordinates and monitors overall progress on the FRMP annually, measuring both progress of

the planned days of the project, and financial progress.

At least three Member States (Bulgaria, Denmark and Slovenia)

156

indicate that the monitoring

report would be published online. Slovenia’s FRMP also indicates that monitoring reports are

subject to a simplified public consultation process.

Flanders informed it monitors progress qualitatively (not started, on-going…),

quantitively (if possible) and

financially.

156

Information portals on monitoring are found in Finland, Denmark, and Luxembourg.

103

155

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

8.10. Financing of measures

8.10.1. Costs of measures

An important factor in the success of the implementation of the programme of measures is the

availability of funding to support the investments required.

Estimates of the costs of flood measures were available for about half of Member States

assessed (see Table 12

157

below), though in many cases this information does not cover all

FRMPs or all measures. In several Member States (for example Belgium), cost information is

available in sources other than the FRMPs

–

for example, websites dedicated to the Programme

of Measures. For the 14 Member States where estimates are (partly) available, the costs range

from EUR 19 million in Cyprus to EUR 2.8 billion in Poland.

Table 12

Member

State

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Croatia

The Czech

Republic

Finland

Hungary

Italy

Total costs reported for FRMP measures

Costs reported for:

Structural

Non-structural

measures



Total costs reported

(national currency and

approximate value in

Euros)

EUR 40 million

BGN 627 million

(EUR 320 million)

EUR 19 million

HRK 4.6 billion

(EUR 598 million)

CZK 14 347 million

(EUR 280 million)

EUR 472 million

HUF 183 billion

(EUR 580 million)

EUR 3 781 million

Notes

Latvia

Poland

Portugal

157



EUR 203 million

158

PLN 11 650 million

(EUR 2 800 million)

EUR 176 million

Information for two FRMPs,

including investment costs but

not operational costs.

Information available for 3 out

of 4 FRMPs.

Costs for 20 measures

–

remaining 18 measures mostly

have no cost.

Cost for 2013-2022 for

infrastructure construction.

For “concrete” measures,

mainly construction measures

Investment costs for 99

measures

Preliminary costs for 26 out of

47 measures

Costs for three of five FRMPs

assessed: Eastern Alps (ITA),

Ofanto/Puglia (ITR161I020),

and Sardinia (ITR201).

Sardinia gave information on

structural measures only.

Costs for the majority of

measures reported.

Costs for the five FRMPs

assessed.

Table for illustration

only: European Commission’s own calculations on the basis of FRMPs assessed and

Member State reporting.

158

Based on information provided by Latvia.

104

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Member

State

Slovenia

Slovakia

UK (N.

Ireland)

Costs reported for:

Structural

Non-structural

measures



Total costs reported

(national currency and

approximate value in

Euros)

EUR 540 million

EUR 400 million

GBP 145 million

(EUR 129 million))

Notes

Cost for one UoM.

Sources: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

Notes: Unless otherwise indicated, the costs reported include both investment and operational costs.

Box 32 - A detailed breakdown of measure costs

In the FRMP for Neagh Bann in

Northern Ireland

(UKGBNIIENB) a detailed breakdown of the costs

is given in the FRMP:

Prevention (2% of total cost): costs of Rivers Agency’s liaison with planning authorities regarding new

development: These are the estimated costs for the provision of flood risk management advice to the

government and local councils;

Protection (95% of total cost): costs of measures in Rivers Agency’s Capital Works Programme; costs

associated with Rivers Agency’s proposed operation of the Homeowner

Flood Protection Grant

Scheme; costs associated with Stakeholder Groups formed to address the requirements of the FD; costs

associated with drainage maintenance; costs associated with drainage and flood risk management

activities by “Transport Northern Ireland”; costs associated with drainage and flood risk management

activities by “Northern Ireland Water”; costs associated with drainage and flood risk management

activities in the Northern Ireland Department of Regional Development (DRD) ‘Living with Water’

Programme;

Preparedness (3% of total cost): costs associated with Rivers Agency’s provision of Emergency

Planning Expertise, Flood Warning, Information and Awareness activities.

A number of FRMPs indicated cost estimates would be reviewed during the implementation of

the measures: Slovenia’s FRMP, for example, explains that the costs of new construction

measures were estimated via expert judgement and will be assessed in the project planning

phase.

Several Member States

–

including Finland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Cyprus, and Spain

–

indicated that some measures were not allocated specific budgets as they are considered core

activities of the competent authorities. In Finland, for example, this includes permitting

105

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

processes and land use planning; in addition, costs assumed to be carried by landowners as part

of their own regular activities or legal obligations were not budgeted.

Figure 19

Reported costs for individual measures, by category

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016, 2017.

Notes: “Unknown” was used when the Member States reported that the cost is “unknown”. “No info”

was used when the Member States did not report any information for that specific measure.

Eight of the 26 Member States that reported provided information on the costs for each

measure

159

(see Figure 19 above). Most measures reported cost EUR 100,000 or less. The

breakdown nonetheless varies across the Member States: For example, in Italy the percentage

of measures costing between one to five million euros (45% of all measures with reported

costs) is far larger than the percentage costing between zero and EUR100 000 (<1%).

While little information is available on the distribution of costs among the aspects of flood risk

management, it appears that these vary significantly, both across Member States as well as

among FRMPs within a single Member States. In Portugal, the share of total cost each FRMP

allocated to prevention measures ranged from 0-53%; for protection measures, 35-99%; for

preparedness measures, 27-68%; and for recovery measures, from 0-28%. Large ranges were

also seen among the FRMPs assessed in Spain.

159

This reporting was optional and even in the Member States in the graph, not all measures had cost information

reported.

106

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

8.10.2. Funding sources

In 23 of the 26 Member States

160

, most of the FRMPs assessed identified funding sources for

measures (see Figure 20 below); however, in many cases the FRMPs make only a generic

reference, identifying possible funding mechanisms rather than making budgetary

commitments.

MS’s own government budgets –

whether at national, regional and local levels - were cited

most frequently: Each of these levels was identified in more than two-thirds of the Member

States whose FRMPs provided funding information. In addition, three Member States

mentioned dedicated government funding instruments: The

Hochwasserschutzprogramm,

fund in Germany jointly managed by Federal States and the Federal Government; the Delta

Fund in the Netherlands and the National Water Fund and Climate Fund in Slovenia.

Figure 20

Funding sources for measures

Sources: Based information available from the assessment of FRMPs in 26 Member States.

Notes: No clear information was found for France

161

and Luxembourg, and these Member States are

thus not represented in the figure.

In 15 Member States, Cohesion Policy Funds were indicated: these include the European

Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund as well as the European Social Fund (the

latter was cited only in the FRMPs assessed for two Member States, Spain and Portugal).

160

161

In Malta the information on costs was found in the RBMP, into which the FRMP is integrated.

In France FRMPs are implemented via the PAPI (Programmes

d’actions de prévention des inondations),

which in turn are financed in large part from a national fund dedicated to risk prevention.

107

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

FRMPs in two Member States

–

Portugal and Slovakia

–

indicate that EU funds are expected

to provide a large share of resources for FRMP investments: In Slovakia, Cohesion Policy co-

financing is envisaged for most measures.

The European Solidarity Fund was cited by five Member States.

162163

The Common

Agricultural Policy was cited by six Member States.

Private and enterprise sources, including groups potentially affected by flooding, were cited in

FRMPs in six Member States

164

. In Denmark, for example, several municipal FRMPs indicate

that companies potentially affected by flooding, including water and electric utilities, are

expected to finance measures. In the United Kingdom, the water utility and the national rail

infrastructure operator are indicated as sources of funding in the two Scottish FRMPs assessed.

Finally, other sources were cited in six

165

Member States:

Poland’s FRMPs, for example,

indicated international development banks including the European Investment Bank as a

potential source; while Croatian FRMPs refer to a loan from the Development Bank of the

Council of Europe and water charges collected by Croatian Water, the water entity under the

umbrella of the ministry. Bulgaria referenced EMEPA

166

and irrigation system enterprises.

Both Austria and Malta identified the EU LIFE Programme as a funding source, with the latter

also identifying EU Horizon 2020 projects.

In Bulgaria, the FRMPs raise the prospect that the identified resources might be insufficient to

cover estimated costs. Similarly, Slovenia’s FRMP states that only EUR 400 million is likely

to be available from financing sources, meaning that not all measures

–

whose total costs were

estimated at EUR 530 million

–

would be covered in the follow up to the 1

FRMP. In the two

English FRMPs assessed, it was stated that measures do not all have secured funding and are

not guaranteed to be implemented. Instead, money is allocated to Risk Management

Authorities based on government policy that gives the highest priority to the areas at highest

risk.

162

In addition to these five Member States, Austria informed that in case of major flood disasters, funding of

measure type M20 (Sofortmaßnahmen) can be supported by the EU Solidarity Fund. To illustrate, in Austria,

the EU Solidarity Fund was mobilised for the enormous flood damages in the years 2002, 2005 and 2013.

163

This fund was set up to respond to major disasters in the EU, including floods.

164

Austria, Germany, Estonia, Spain, Poland, and the United Kingdom.

165

The FRMPs in Lithuania do not define what is meant by “other”.

166

The Bulgarian Enterprise for Management of Environmental Protection Activities.

108

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

8.11. Coordination with the WFD

8.11.1. Developing the FRMPs and RBMPs

In the majority of Member States and UoMs assessed, separate FRMPs and RBMPs were

prepared (see Figure 21 below).

Figure 21

Coordination between FRMPs and RBMPs

Source: Member States reporting under the FD and the WFD; FRMPs.

There are nevertheless few exceptions. In Croatia and in the Flanders and Brussels Regions of

Belgium, a single plan was prepared for both FRMPs and RBMPs. In Malta as well, a single

plan was prepared, with the FRMP presented as an annex of the RBMP. In Lithuania, while

separate plans were prepared, measures from both the FRMPs and the RBMPs were integrated

into the Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023, although it should be noted that

the Programme includes only limited text from each plan. In the Czech Republic, separate

FRMPs and RBMPs were prepared at UoM level (consequently, the Czech Republic is not

included in the figure among the Member States with integrated plans); however, integrated

plans were prepared at a lower, sub-basin level, addressing both RB management and flood

risk management

167

The Czech Republic indicated three levels of plans: those for international UoMs (level A), for national UoMs

(level B) and sub-basins within the UoMs (level C); the Czech Republic reported the level B plans to WISE

but not the level C plans.

109

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Despite this diversity, almost all Member States have designated UoMs under the FD which

correspond to the RBDs designated for the WFD (with the exception of Italy and Romania). In

the United Kingdom, for example, this extends to sub-basins (catchments).

In addition, in nearly all the Member States assessed, the same authorities prepare both the

FRMP and the RBMP. Among the exceptions is Northern Ireland, where different authorities

prepare the two types of plans but have continuous engagement through an interdepartmental

steering group and via local Flood Forums; another is Sweden, whose Water Authorities

prepared the RBMPs while county administrations prepared the FRMPs.

In other Member States, it is often stated in the FRMPs that coordination is carried out between

the two authorities. In Slovenia, for example, the FRMPs and RBMPs are prepared in the same

authority but by different teams. In both Italy and the United Kingdom, this depends on the

UoM (and in the case of the United Kingdom, the country).

In more than half of the Member States assessed, it was reported that consultation of the draft

FRMP and draft RBMP were carried out together. In Bulgaria, for example, national law

requires the public consultation for both plans to be run in parallel. Some Member States

carried out joint stakeholder engagement activities for the two Plans. In Estonia, for example,

consultations within the Commission for RB Management, which brings together government

bodies, national experts and water service companies, addressed both the FRMPs and

RBMPs.

168

In another example of linked work, joint SEAs were undertaken for the RBMPs and FRMPs in

three out of the five UoMs assessed in Spain.

8.11.2. Relationship with WFD Objectives

In the majority of the Member States assessed

–

21 out of the 26

–

FRMPs refer to

coordination with the environmental objectives set out in Article 4 of the WFD in all or at least

some of the UoMs assessed (see Figure 22

below). Austria’s FRMP, for example, states that

WFD objectives must not be endangered and have priority over FD objectives. On the other

hand, in 18 Member States, the objectives of the FD were considered in the preparation of the

RBMPs in all or at least some of the UoMs assessed (based on reporting of RBMPs under the

WFD).

168

In addition, Austria informed that a joint brochure and a joint roundtable on water issues were used to launch

the consultation process for both its FRMP and RBMP.

110

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Figure 22

Integration of objectives in RBMPs and FRMPs

Source: Member States reporting under the FD and the WFD; FRMPs.

Moreover, in at least nine Member States, the FRMPs describe measures in terms of their

WFD objectives: For many of these FRMPs, measures are assessed to determine whether they

impact on WFD objectives (see the example below from Poland). Germany, for example,

categorised its flood measures on three levels: those that support implementation of the WFD;

those that are neutral or not relevant; and those that might lead to a conflict with

implementation of the WFD. Some FRMPs in Italy, such as the Plans for the Po and for the

Eastern Alps, also categorised flood measures along these lines.

Box 33 - Assessing the impact of FRMP measures on WFD objectives

Poland,

the FRMPs indicate that the biological and hydromorphological quality elements under

the WFD were considered in the analysis of the impacts of the FRMPs on WFD objectives.

Hydromorphological elements considered include: Quantity and dynamics of water flow,

connections with groundwater bodies, river continuity, morphological conditions: river depths, width

variation, structure and composition of river beds, coastal zone structure. The FRMPs also indicate

that opportunities for fish passages for flood structures were analysed.

8.11.3. Synergies between FRMP and RBMP measures

In several areas, FRMP measures can support WFD objectives. Moreover, synergies between

FRMPs and RBMPs can include:

111

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel



Consistent application of WFD Article 4(7) and designation of heavily modified water

bodies due to measures under the FD, e.g. flood defence infrastructure;

The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage

dams and tidal barriers, have been adapted to take into account achieving WFD

Environmental Objectives;



The use of sustainable drainage systems, such as the construction of wetland and

porous pavements, have been considered to reduce urban flooding and also to

contribute to the achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives;

The RBMP PoM includes win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the

WFD and FD, drought management and NWRMs;

Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dams, dredging, flood defence

construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and RBMPs.



The figure below shows how these actions were applied in the FRMPs assessed.

Figure 23

Synergies between FRMP and RBMP measures

Source: Member States reporting under the FD and the WFD; FRMPs.

112

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Looking at coordination overall, a number of Member States carried out efforts across all

aspects of FRMP and RBMP preparation: one example is Germany, described in the box

below.

Box 34 - Coordination of FRMPs and RBMPs

Germany

carried out an intensive coordination of its FRMPs and RBMPs. Aspects included: joint

consultation, coordination between competent authorities, coordination of objectives and measures.

The FRMPs also contain assessments of the interactions between measures under the FD and the

objectives of the WFD. As noted above, Germany assessed its FRMP measures in terms of their level

of support for WFD objectives. Coordination with local authorities and authorities from other

departments (than those responsible for floods) took place with relevant stakeholders when

developing both plans.

8.12. Summary of good practice and areas for further development

8.12.1. Good practices

Across the Member States there were a number of good practices. To begin with, several

Member States clearly linked their measures to the objectives in all or some of the FRMPs

assessed. For example, Slovakia provided a comprehensive assessment of the potential impact

of the existing and suggested protection measures in achieving the FRMP objectives.

Secondly, some Member States such as Bulgaria and Estonia included specific detail on their

measures, including location, cost and responsible authority. The FRMPs for a few Member

States such as Poland provided estimated costs for all measures as well as indications of main

sources of funding.

Several Member States provide clear information in their FRMPs with respect to monitoring

the progress of the measures in relation to the objectives and for tracking the implementation

of the measures. In Spain (for the five FRMPs assessed) progress in the implementation of

planned measures is tracked via monitoring indicators, including quantitative baselines and

targets. In Bulgaria, the FRMP for the West Aegean (BG4000) defines two separate indicators

per planned measure - one for tracking implementation progress and one for tracking progress

towards achieving the objectives. Interestingly, Denmark and Slovenia indicate that they will

include an element of public transparency and consultation with respect to monitoring the

implementation of measures. Specifically, in one Danish municipality (Norddjurs) there are

113

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

plans to have a public log where the public can follow the implementation of measures and in

Slovenia, monitoring will be carried out every two years and will include a public consultation

process.

The prioritisation of measures was addressed well by a number of Member States. In Italy, for

example, the FRMPs provided details of the prioritisation processes including the criteria used.

With respect to co-ordination of measures with the WFD and integration with RBMPs, three

areas of good practice can be observed 1) with respect to co-ordination of plans and

consultation and 2) processes for assessing the relationship between measures in FRMPs and

RBMPs and 3) presence of win-win measures for both Directives.

Nearly all Member States included nature based solutions (including NWRMs); a few,

including Austria and Luxembourg, planned a high number of such measures. A range of

approaches are seen: Bulgaria’s FRMPs, for example, include several types of NWRMs: the

re-naturalisation of rivers and river beds; re-meandering of rivers, and afforestation of areas

along rivers, coasts and dams. Malta refers to the introduction of sustainable urban drainage

systems.

Almost all Member States included measures on spatial planning and land use in their FRMPs:

For example, all of Germany’s FRMPs assessed have measures to control

building and

development in floodplains. In many, as in France, the measures call for the integration of

flood risks into spatial plans.

While few Member States addressed insurance in their plans, good practices can be seen in

Lithuania and Portugal, both of which include measures for the national framework for flood

insurance. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Luxembourg, and Slovenia’s FRMPs include measures to raise

awareness of insurance schemes.

8.12.2. Areas for further development

A key aspect requiring attention and seen in many FRMPs was a lack of clarity on how

objectives would be met and if measures put forward were indeed sufficient to achieve

objectives. This is related in part to the fact that for many Member States, objectives are not

specific or measurable (see section 7) and often, the measures are not specific or measurable

either. Further, only about half of Member States provide a link between objectives and

measures in their FRMPs, for example by identifying which objectives each measure

114

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

contributes to. Few FRMPs identify indicators or other mechanisms that would show if the

implementation of measures will lead to the achievement of objectives, or a baseline against

which to measure their impacts. Considering that these were the first FRMPs and that there is a

requirement to assess progress towards the achievement of objectives set from the second

FRMPs onwards, the evidence cannot be conclusive, but it is suggestive and points to

difficulties in assessing progress come 2021.

With respect to costs there was a lack of or incomplete cost information in many Member

States. Several Member States lacked information on funding sources as well. For a number of

countries, the methodology for prioritisation of measures was not clear or not provided.

In terms of links with the WFD, some Member States made unclear or no links between the

FD’s and the WFD’s measures, others made limited links.

There was a lack of detail on nature based solutions (including NWRMs) in a few FRMPs.

Very few FRMPs provide information on how nature conservation was addressed in their

measures, though nature based solutions should have positive impacts on nature.

On the basis of the discussion in chapter 8, the following recommendations can be made for

the preparation of the second FRMPs:



Member States should seek to exhaust possibilities for specific and measurable

details on their measures and should clearly link measures to objectives in their

FRMPs. Where possible, FRMPs should also present indicators or other

mechanisms to show how the implementation of measures supports the

achievement of objectives.

Member States should provide a baseline against which impacts are measured in

their FRMPs. This information will help to ensure that measures’ progress towards

reaching the objectives set is monitored.

Member States should provide in their FRMPs more concrete information on the

estimated costs of the measures and sources of funding.

Member States should strengthen the links between the FRMPs and the RBMPs

where the two Directives intersect.



115

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel



Member States should seek to identify further opportunities to use nature based

solutions for flood risk management.



Member States should assess whether encouraging economic instruments (possibly

including insurance) that promote flood risk reduction are relevant to their

particular situation and mix of measures.

116

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Consideration of costs and benefits and use of CBA

The FD states that “Flood

risk management plans shall take into account relevant aspects such

as costs and benefits….”

(Article 7(3)). The Annex on FRMPs goes on to list, among the

components to be included in the Plans, “when

available… a description of the methodology…

of cost-benefit analysis used to assess measures with transnational effects”

(which effects

may

extend geographically wider than the location of the measure itself, or of the relevant APSFR),

indicating this analysis is particularly valuable in a transboundary context. The Directive’s

Annex also calls on FRMPs to describe the prioritisation of measures: An analysis of costs and

benefits of measures could be an important consideration both in their selection as well as their

prioritisation.

This section reviews the information gathered from Member States’ reporting and from the

FRMPs assessed on approaches to consider the costs and benefits of the measures set out in

their FRMPs, including their use of CBA.

9.1.

Overview of the consideration of costs and benefits in FRMPs

A majority of the Member States assessed, 19, have made some analysis of costs and benefits

of their measures. Among the 19, fewer, 11 out of 26 of the Member States assessed used a

CBA in all UoMs assessed (see Figure 24 below). A further five of the 19 Member States

indicated the use of CBA for some of their FRMPs, in some cases referring to cost-

effectiveness rather than cost-benefit analysis. In Portugal, for example, the FRMP for Azores

(PTRH9) includes “the cost-effectiveness of measures” among its objectives, and the FRMP

for Madeira (PTRH10) provides a cost-effectiveness assessment for one measure. In Italy, a

reference to CBA is found in three of the five FRMPs assessed, though the information

provided was limited for some: For the Eastern Alps (ITA), for example, economic analysis is

one of the four criteria used for prioritisation, though details on the approach are not provided

in the Plan. The FRMP for Puglia and Ofanto (ITR161I020), on the other hand, discusses costs

and benefits (see the box below).

Not all FRMPs provided a summary of results from CBA: For example, no information was

found for two of Bulgaria’s four FRMPs, nor in two of the five Italian FRMPs assessed.

117

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Box 35 - Assessing costs and benefits in the FRMP

Italy,

the FRMP for Puglia and Ofanto provides an overview of the costs of measures to be

financed by the Puglia Region and presents estimates of the costs of floods for three sectors:

urban/residential, industry and agriculture. The Plan also notes that recent and historical floods have

high costs in terms of transport infrastructure and also in terms of lives (the reporting sheet notes

impacts on human health and lives are difficult to quantify in monetary terms and are not included in

the cost estimates.) The Plan indicates that damage costs will be further estimated in the

implementation of the Plan itself.

Figure 24

Number of Member States reporting the use of cost-benefit analysis or

alternative approves for measures

Source: Member States reporting and FRMPs.

Note: Cyprus uses a cost-benefit analysis for construction measures and an alternative system for non-

construction measures. As Cyprus has one UoM, it is counted

in the category ‘all UoMs’.

Slovenia’s FRMP and French authorities state that a CBA is to be done at project level; both

have been included in the first category “for all UoMs”.

Three of the 19 Member States that made some analysis of costs and benefits presented

alternative approaches: Both Austria and Luxembourg indicated that expert judgement was

used to rate the cost-effectiveness of measures on a simple scale (in Austria, the scale had three

levels: very high, high and even, i.e. neutral, cost-effectiveness). The Czech authorities

118

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

clarified that a full CBA was not used, although an expert assessment of costs and benefits was

carried out for at least a set of measures.

Information on the use of CBA was unclear in seven Member States. Latvia and Sweden

169

, for

example reports the use of CBA but no information on where and how it was applied, or on its

results, was found in the FRMPs. In Germany, the use of CBA or the methodologies applied

were not found in the FRMPs assessed (CBA is applied at the project level), while in Malta, it

was subsequently clarified by the Maltese authorities that a holistic economic assessment was

carried out as part of the analysis of FRMP and RBMP measures. For Spain, while all five

FRMPs assessed refer to CBA as a criterion for selecting and prioritising measures, the

reference is always brief, and no further details were found, nor evidence of the results of a

CBA exercise. In the Netherlands cost benefit analysis was carried out as part of the

preparation of the National Water Plan, details are lacking on the methodology and outcomes

in the FRMP. In Croatia, a CBA methodology was developed but apparently was not used for

the FRMP (it will be used for the revision of the separate Multi-annual programme for the

construction of regulation and protection water facilities and amelioration facilities.)

9.1.1. Measures assessed with CBA

When looking at the 19 Member States where a CBA or an alternative method was indicated,

more than one third

–

seven Member States

–

reported that it was used for all measures (see

Figure 25 below) in at least some UoMs. This includes Austria and Luxembourg, which

employed a simplified approach to cost-effectiveness analysis based on expert judgement. In

Lithuania, it is reported that CBA was used for measures across all four aspects (protection,

prevention, preparedness and recovery & review); however, CBA was not carried out for

NWRMs due to methodological difficulties (see also below)

170

Five Member States indicated that CBA was only used for structural measures. In many cases,

as in Finland, it appears that CBA is used mainly for structural measures that are construction

projects, i.e. “grey infrastructure”, rather than NWRMs or other nature-based

approaches

(“green infrastructure”). In Estonia, however, both grey and green infrastructure were assessed.

In Slovenia and France, CBA was not carried out during the preparation of the FRMP itself;

rather, it is used at project level - in France it is not clear which types of measures are subjected

In the Swedish guidance document on how to produce the FRMP, costs and benefits are seen as voluntary

basis, except for the international plan for the APSFR Haparanda, which is an area shared with Finland.

Sweden also noted that in the Vännäs FRMP (not among the five assessed here), the most cost-effective

measures have been prioritised, and in particular low or no cost measures were considered in this FRMP.

170

Despite this, Lithuania was still categorised as “all measures” in the graph below.

119

169

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

to a CBA, but in Slovenia, the focus appears to be on structural measures. In Romania, a multi-

criteria analysis with cost-benefit elements was used for most measures at APSFR level.

However, it was not used for non-structural measures deemed necessary for flood

management, nor those measures with major environment benefits, as these measures are

considered to be a high priority, regardless of the results of such an analysis.

Figure 25

Measures assessed with CBA and alternative methods

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

Note: Based on the 19 Member States that used CBA (or alternative analysis) in some or all of their

UoMs

–

out of the 26 Member States assessed.

In three Member States, the application of CBA varies across the UoMs assessed. Italy is one,

mentioned above. The second is the United Kingdom: in the Neagh Bann UoM in Northern

Ireland, the FRMP mentions that maintenance and capital programmes are evaluated using

cost-benefit criteria; the Severn FRMP indicates that in Wales, the prioritisation of all

measures considers costs and benefits; in Scotland, the FRMPs assessed state that all measures

are appraised for their costs and benefits (including potential economic benefits and non-

monetary impacts on the community and the environment). In Denmark, the third Member

States, two municipalities assessed used CBA for the prioritisation of measures. In the

municipal FRMP for Odense Fjord, costs were calculated for all proposed measures. In the

municipal FRMP for Aabenraa, costs for a levee and some technical infrastructure (pumps and

sluices) were calculated. In both cases, only investment costs appear to have been considered.

120

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

In four Member States (Belgium, The Czech Republic, France, and Portugal), information was

not found to understand if CBA was applied to all measures or only some.

9.2.

Overview of the methodologies applied

Across the 19 Member States that applied some form of CBA (or related analysis), twelve

171

provided clear indications of the methodology used. In nearly all these cases, a national

approach had been developed. One example is Bulgaria, described in the box below.

Box 36 - Cost-Benefit Analysis methods

Bulgaria’s

national methodology was based on EU guidance for investment projects financed under

Cohesion Policy

172

. Bulgaria further developed this approach for application to structural projects for

floods: A national catalogue of measures provides estimates of the costs of the measures (investment

and operational costs); benefits were estimated based on the damages avoided by the projects,

calculated for different assets (including homes, infrastructure and land). Costs and benefits were

calculated for three flood scenarios (20, 100 and 1000-year

floods), based on information in Bulgaria’s

FHRMs

173

. In Bulgaria, results were presented in terms of economic net present value (ENPV),

economic rate of return (ERR) and benefit-to-cost ratio (B/C)

–

these indicators were also used in

Poland (see the next box).

As in Bulgaria, several other Member States indicate that costs were estimated based on both

investment and operational costs

–

this was the case for Cyprus

174

, Hungary and Slovenia, for

example.

A few Member States refer to the benefits part of the CBA in terms of protection of health, the

environment and cultural heritage in flood events. In Slovenia, benefits are calculated in terms

of reduction of damage to the health of people, environment, cultural heritage and the

economies of the affected areas. Slovakia’s methodology considers a broad range of damages

Detailed information was found for Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovenia,

Slovakia and Cyprus. Some information was found for Denmark, Estonia and Romania. Information for

Croatia was provided subsequently by the Croatian authorities, however, no information was to be found in the

FRMP or in the reporting sheets.

172

European Commission, Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects: Economic Appraisal Tool for

Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 (prepared by Davide Sartori et al), 2014. Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/guides/2014/guide-to-cost-benefit-analysis-of-

investment-projects-for-cohesion-policy-2014-2020

173

In Bulgaria’s Danube UoM (BG1000), only the 100-year

scenario was used.

174

Cyprus’ methodology concerned the cost-effectiveness

analysis.

121

171

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

avoided in its calculation of the benefits of flood investments, including cultural heritage sites,

potential pollution loads from IPPC and Seveso installations. In Poland, the avoidance of both

material and intangible losses were included in the benefit calculations (see the box below).

Among the FRMPs that provided information on CBA methodology, the time frame used in

the calculations varies. Hungary and Cyprus, for example, reported using a 30-year planning

timeframe; Poland, a 50-year time frame; in Slovakia the lifetime of a measure was considered

to be 100 years.

Box 37 - Cost-benefit analysis

Poland

the analysis period covered 2015 to 2064. First, an analysis of investment and operational

costs was carried out, followed by an analysis of social costs and benefits. The following social

benefits were included: flood losses avoided as a result of investments, avoided intangible losses

calculated in the amount of 40% of material losses, induced economic benefits. The reduction of

flood losses was calculated as the difference between the losses without investment and with

investment (after completion). Based on the hydrological model, the surface of floods was simulated

for various flow values with a defined probability of occurrence: 10%, 1% and 0.2%. The values of

flood losses were based on national scale. These values were indexed for inflation (based on values

appropriate for a given category of land use in previous years).

The method used is based on the calculation of average annual flood losses (AAD). On the basis of

the cost-benefit analysis, the following economic performance indicators were calculated: economic

net present value (ENPV), economic rate of return (ERR) and benefit-to-cost ratio (B/C).

As noted above, Austria and Luxembourg used a simplified cost-effectiveness approach based

on expert judgement. In Austria, each measure description has a qualitative estimation of the

cost-effectiveness of the measure. For example, for Austrian measures under type M01 (EU

measure type M21

175

), the following assessment is provided: “As the costs of this measure are

relatively low, and the associated reduction in risk potentially very high, it can be assumed that

the cost-effectiveness

is usually very high”. In Luxembourg, a similar approach considered

several factors such as: Economic costs and benefits, effectiveness in terms of achieving WFD

objectives, implementation feasibility and expected flood risk reductions and improvements in

the risk management.

175

Prevention, Avoidance, Measures to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas,

such as land use planning policies or regulation.

122

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

9.2.1. Consideration of multi-benefits from measures

Measures can have multiple benefits beyond those related to their immediate aims. This is the

case in particular for nature-based solutions (such as afforestation, room for the river and

wetlands restoration measures): In addition to benefits for flood protection, these can increase a

range of other ecosystem services such as enhancement of biodiversity, provision of food and

raw materials, and enhancement of recreation opportunities

176

, but also potentially prevent

other disasters such as mud- or landslides. Multi-benefits of measures can exist in other areas

as well: For example, preparedness measures for flood protection may also improve

preparedness for other natural hazards, such as forest fires.

Relatively few indications were found that multi-benefits were considered. In some of

Denmark’s municipal FRMPs, the provision of recreation benefits alongside flood risk

reduction efforts is considered. In Luxembourg and Cyprus, as noted above, the cost-

effectiveness assessment considered WFD objectives, and thus the ecological and chemical

status of water bodies. Also in Bulgaria, synergies between FD measures and WFD objectives

were considered. In the case of Hungary, it was reported that the FRMP considered multi-

benefits; however, no details were found in the plan itself.

9.2.2. Consideration of the transnational effects of measures in CBA

The Annex to the FD states that FRMPs should describe the methodology for CBA of

measures with transnational effects when available. The assessment of FRMPs, however,

found only one example where CBA was used in this context for a specific measure, in

Finland’s FRMP for the Tornionjoki catchment (see the box below).

Box 38 - Bilateral coordination on mapping, objectives and measures

The lower Tornio or Torne River forms part of the border between

Finland

and

Sweden.

Coordination

between the Finnish Tornionjoki catchment (FIVHA6) and the Swedish Torne River UoM (SE1TO)

has covered the preparation of FHRM maps, supported via a joint Interreg project (see section 7) and

objectives (see section 8). CBA was used in a transboundary context: A measure for flood protection

walls in the city of Tornio was assessed for impacts on the city of Haparanda in Sweden, just across the

Torne River.

176

European Commission (DG Regional and Urban Policy), The Guide to Multi-Benefit Cohesion Policy

Investments in Nature and Green Infrastructure (prepared by IEEP and Milieu Ltd), 2013. Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/guide_multi_benefit_nature.pdf

123

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

A great number of FRMPs noted that there were no transboundary measures, and for this

reason transnational effects have not been considered. This approach, however, would not have

captured possible transnational effects stemming from national measures. In Poland,

transnational effects were assessed as negligible in most cases.

9.3.

Summary of good practice and areas for further development

Among

good practice,

a key result is that some form of consideration of costs and benefits

–

both the use of CBA as well as simpler approaches

–

was made in over two-thirds of the

Member States assessed. A number of Member States, such as Poland and Slovakia, provided a

clear overview of the methodology used for CBA. While not all Member States used a

comprehensive CBA approach, Austria, The Czech Republic, and Luxembourg applied a

simple method based on expert judgement.

Among the

areas for development,

not all Member States provided clear information on the

CBA methodologies applied and their results; in several cases the FRMPs assessed do not

describe clearly how CBA results have been used in the selection or prioritisation of measures.

One notable area for development is that only one case has been identified (and only for one

measure) where a CBA was used to assess measures with transnational effects. This is indeed

notable given the many transboundary RBDs/UoMs in Europe.

In addition, few examples were found where CBA included multi-benefits. Such benefits are

expected especially for NWRMs, and in several Member States that used CBA, this was not

carried out for such measures but only for “grey infrastructure” construction measures.

On this basis, the following recommendations can be made for the preparation of the second

FRMPs:



Member States should consider a more systematic consideration of costs and

benefits, where possible via the use of CBA. These methods should be integrated

into the selection and prioritisation of measures, to promote cost-effective paths for

efficient flood risk management.



A review of potential transnational effects of FRMP measures (even if the

measures themselves do not cross borders), supported through CBA, should be

carried out, for example in the context of international RB commissions, to ensure

124

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

that these effects are considered in the selection and prioritisation of measures.



It may be useful to further explore and identify methods for multi-benefits and for

the CBA of nature based solutions at EU level. Developing expertise in this area

will reinforce the overall CBA approach.

125

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

10.

Consideration of the likely impacts of climate change

The EU’s 2013 Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

177

underlines the importance of

addressing flood risks due to climate change, highlighting the role of the Directive in doing so.

The evaluation of the 2013 EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change concluded in

November 2018 that as a policy instrument the strategy has succeeded in focusing decision-

makers on the need to prepare for climate hazards

178

. The FD in turn underlines that climate

change leads to greater

“likelihood

and adverse impacts of flood events”

(preamble, recital 2).

The Directive therefore calls on Member States to address climate change in the PFRAs and

the FRMPs and to address likely climate change impacts on the occurrence of floods in the

reviews of their FRMPs (Article 14(4))

–

consequently, the consideration of climate change

impacts will become mandatory with the second cycle of FRMPs.

The economic costs of flooding in Europe have increased significantly since the 1970s, and the

changing climate has played a role in this trend

179

. Greater flood risks are forecast in coming

decades, in particular in northern and north-western Europe. A recent review by the EEA

underlined that modelling of the effects of climate change on river water flooding indicates

major differences across Europe: increases in flooding are projected in parts of France,

northern Italy as well as the Balkans and Carpathian regions; some other areas, however, may

see decrease in flooding. On the other hand, mean sea levels are expected to rise in coming

decades, as are increases in the intensity of storm surges: these factors are expected to increase

the frequency of seawater flooding across EU coastlines

180

. Most recently, the October 2018

report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) “Global Warming of 1.5°C”

mentioned that human exposure to increased flooding is projected to be substantially lower at

1.5°C as compared to 2°C of global warming, although projected changes create regionally

differentiated risks. The report reminds that the differences in the risks among regions are

strongly influenced by local socio-economic conditions.

181

177

178

See

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what_en

(under review at the time of drafting this report)

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/europe-ready-climate-impacts-commission-evaluates-its-strategy_en

179

Other key factors include development within floodplains.

180

From EEA, Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe: Enhancing coherence of the

knowledge base, policies and practices, EEA Report No. 15/2017

181

Technical summary:

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

126

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

10.1. Integration of climate change in the PFRA and FHRM stages

Looking back, the EU Overview Report on the PFRA assessment found that 17 Member

States, out of 23 that were assessed, considered climate change in their assessments of flood

risk. Seven Member States did not consider climate change, and there was no information for

the remaining five Member States

182,183

. Subsequently, the EU Overview report

184

on the

development of the FHRMs found that 16 out of 27 Member States assessed took climate

change into account. The two reports noted different approaches compared to the PFRA stage

for a few Member States: For example, Estonia, Hungary and Spain considered climate change

in the PFRA stage but not the FHRM stage, while Ireland did not consider climate change for

its PFRA but did for the FHRMs.

10.2. Addressing climate change in the FRMPs

Information from Member States reporting and from the FRMPs assessed found that a high

share of Member States considered at least some aspects of climate change: as shown in Figure

26 below, the FRMPs of ten Member States provided strong evidence that climate impacts

were considered; those for 14 Member States provided some evidence (out of FRMPs assessed

in 26 Member States).

182

183

One Member State had not reported, four had applied Article 13.

European Commission, European Overview

Assessment of Member States’ reports on PFRA and

Identification of Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk (drafted by WRc et al), 2015, Table 18.

184

European Commission, EU overview of methodologies used in preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk

Maps (drafted by WRc et al), 2015.

127

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Figure 26

Consideration of climate change in FRMPs

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

An example of strong evidence is seen in Denmark, where most of the municipal FRMPs

assessed refer to links with municipal climate change mitigation and adaptation plans. In

Estonia, each FRMP includes a chapter dedicated to climate change and how its impact has

been addressed, starting from the PFRA stage.

Member States providing some evidence including those where only a small share of the

FRMPs assessed considered climate change. In Finland, one FRMP (for the Kalajoki

catchment areas in FIVHA4) includes adaptation among its objectives. This category also

includes Member States where brief information is provided on climate impacts but little

description on how climate is considered in measures. For a few Member States, the discussion

of climate is brief and general. In Cyprus it is stated that the FRMP is reviewed periodically

and updated if necessary, taking into account the likely effects of climate change in relation to

the occurrence of floods.

10.2.1. Reference to national climate change adaptation strategies

Although many FRMPs consider potential impacts of climate change on flooding, less than

half refer to the national adaptation strategies prepared by Member States under the EU

Adaptation Strategy

185

. In eight of the 26 Member States

–

Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Croatia,

185

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what_en

128

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Hungary, Malta

186

, Poland and Slovakia

–

all FRMPs assessed referred to such national

strategies; in a further six Member States - Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the

United Kingdom

–

some but not all FRMPs assessed had such references; and no references

were found in the FRMPs of the remaining 12 Member States (see Figure 27 below).

The FRMPs that do make such references describe the adaptation strategies in quite different

terms. In some cases, there is only a brief citation. For example, the Austrian FRMP states that

all measures in the FRMP are in line with the recommendations in the strategy. For Bulgaria,

Spain and Portugal, on the other hand, FRMPs indicate their aim to develop synergies with

adaptation strategies. In Slovakia, FRMPs state that some measures are taken from the national

adaptation strategy. It is worth noting that in Italy, the SEA carried out for one FRMP included

an analysis of the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Most but not all Member States had published national adaptations strategies before their

FRMPs were established. In six Member States, however, the national strategy had not yet

been adopted in late 2015 (the deadline to establish FRMPs): Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus,

Estonia, Latvia and Slovenia

187 188

. Nonetheless, the Estonian and Cyprus FRMPs refer to a

draft of the national strategy, as does one of the four Bulgarian FRMPs.

186

In Malta the reference to the national climate adaptation strategy is in the Second Water Catchment

Management Plan, but not in the Annex that is the FRMP.

187

Estonia’s and Slovenia’s national adaptation strategies were since adopted:

https://climate-

adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-regions/countries

188

In Sweden the Swedish National Strategy for climate Change Adaptation was adopted in the first half of 2018.

However, a 2009 report was referenced by several FRMPs (not assessed in this study).

129

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Figure 27

References to National Climate Change Adaptation Strategies

Source: Member States reporting and FRMPs.

The lack of reference to the national adaptation strategies in almost half of the Member States

is a finding that requires attention, given concerns that climate change will affect flooding

patterns in many Member States and that these policy documents address national adaptation.

Equally, future versions of national adaptation strategies should draw from the findings of

FRMPs so that synergies are exploited.

10.2.2. Presentation of potential climate impacts

In just over half of the Member States considered, 15 out of 26

189

, the FRMPs provide at least

a short discussion of potential impacts of climate change on flood events (see Figure 28).

These Member States consider a potential shift in the occurrence (or intensity) of extreme

events and/or changes in the main source of flooding.

For three Member States, information is provided for only some of the UoMs

190

. In Italy, for

example, reporting to WISE briefly refers to future climate impacts in the Mediterranean area,

but only one of the five FRMPs assessed mentions possible climate impacts (Italy’s reporting

to WISE states that climate issues will be addressed in the next cycle of FRMPs).

189

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Croatia, Hungary, Lithuania,

Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom.

190

Bulgaria, Italy, and Sweden.

130

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Of those Member States that did not present the potential climate impacts, two (Latvia and

Portugal) did not consider climate change in the FRMPs assessed. In Austria, Denmark

191

Lithuania, Romania, Spain, and Slovenia, although impacts were not discussed, the FRMPs

include measures that address climate change. Indeed, in Spain and Austria the uncertainty

concerning climate change was highlighted, with measures designed to investigate the possible

impacts further.

Figure 28

FRMPs that present potential climate impacts

Source: Member States reporting and FRMPs.

The table below provides a summary of the main impacts of climate change on flooding

identified in the FRMPs. It should be underlined that this table represents a brief summary of

the information presented in the plans, which draw on a range of national and international

studies, and not on the underlying research. Poland’s FRMPs, for example, cite a number of

sources including an FP6 project, ENSEMBLES

192

, on climate modelling for Europe, as well

as a catchment-level study in Poland.

191

In Denmark climate change scenarios are often set out in the Flood Risk Maps or municipal climate change

adaptation and mitigation plans rather than the FRMPs (although the FRMPs do refer to these documents).

192

http://ensembles-eu.metoffice.com/

131

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Table 13

Member

State

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

The Czech

Republic

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Information provided in FRMPs regarding climate impacts on flood risks

Increase



Decrease

No change

Notes

More summer precipitation, prolonged winter

precipitation, more heavy rainfall will increase

occurrence of flooding.

Extreme rainfall might increase risk of flash floods;

spring floods might decrease

Less summer precipitation, less precipitation in

certain areas, more precipitation in others, steady

trend of sea level rise

Increase in occurrence of extreme flooding events

and decrease in annual precipitation.

High uncertainty across studies but overall no major

changes expected

Shift predicted from spring floods to those in

summer, autumn and winter

Sea-level change.

Increased flooding expected in Weser UoM

(DE4000); no change in Rhine

193

(DE2000);

increased seawater flooding expected due to sea level

rise

Increase in extreme meteorological events (e.g. flash

floods) and seawater flooding expected

Increase in river floods (potential for fluvial

flooding)

Increase in heavy rainfall leading to flooding, and

long-term, sea-level rise is expected. A change of

storm surges is not anticipated.

Extreme weather events are expected to be more

frequent due to climate change

Greater risks related to intense rainfall, but floods

from snowmelt should decrease

Increased water levels in lakes could

increase/aggravate fluvial floods, and pluvial floods

may become more significant.

Not clear, but more irregular precipitation patterns

expected

Increase in heavy rain and other weather extremes



Italy

Luxembourg

Malta

The

Netherlands

Poland

Sweden

Slovakia

The

United

Kingdom



Source: Member States reporting and FRMPs.

Note: Member States whose FRMPs do not discuss changes in flooding due to climate change are not

included. In several Member States, the impacts listed were not found in all FRMPs assessed.

The FRMPs vary in terms of the extent of information they present on climate impacts. As

mentioned above, the FRMPs of 15 Member States assessed discuss the expected impact of

future climate change; another three Member States discuss the impacts in only some of the

193

Specifically, the FRMP for North Rhine Westphalia.

132

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

FRMPs assessed

194

. Several Member States, such as Poland, provide detailed information and

references, while others provide only brief notes on potential climate impacts.

Fourteen Member States include timeframes for the scenarios - the remaining six

195

did not

provide specific

timeframes of scenarios. All Member States identified as having “strong

evidence” in the section above included timeframes, however, it is worth noting that Belgium,

Bulgaria, Finland, and Luxembourg all were identified as having “some evidence” but did

include qualitative timeframes in at least some FRMPs.

The time frame presented in the Plans varies (see the table below). Most common are scenarios

for 2050, seen in five Member States, and scenarios for 2100, cited in six Member States. For

most of the Member States that discussed climate scenarios, their FRMPs presented climate

scenarios for at least two time frames.

In a few Member States, approaches varied across the FRMPs assessed: in the United

Kingdom, for example, the Neagh Bann FRMP in Northern Ireland presents information for

2030 and 2100 scenarios; the FRMP prepared for the English part of the Solway Tweed UoM

discusses a range of time frames from 2025 to beyond 2100; and the Scottish flood risk

management strategies assessed refer to 2080 scenarios.

Table 14

Time frame of climate scenarios discussed in the FRMPs

Belgium (Brussels)

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Estonia

Germany

Finland

France

Luxembourg

The Netherlands

Poland

The United Kingdom

2030





2050









**



**

2070/2080



2100





*



*



**

194

The Latvian reporting sheets refer to studies on climate change impacts, however, climate change was not

taken into account in the FRMPs, and thus Latvia is not included in this count.

195

Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary (scenarios are instead set out in the Second Climate Change Strategy), Italy,

Sweden, and Slovakia.

133

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Source: Member States reporting and FRMPs.

* For Croatia, Cyprus and France, the time frames indicated represent an approximation: in

Cyprus scenarios were developed for a period of 20, 50, and 100 years, however, the baseline

was not clear (although 2007 is the end of the historical time period used for the model); in

Croatia, the timeframes are the periods 2011-2040, 2041-2070, and 2071-2099; in France

one FRMP makes reference to year 100. ** For the United Kingdom, different scenarios

presented across the FRMPs.

10.3. Climate change adaptation measures

The EU Adaptation Strategy underlines the importance of mainstreaming adaptation to climate

change throughout EU and Member States policies and investments. Key actions identified in

the Strategy include climate-proofing investments and ensuring more resilient infrastructure

including green infrastructure

196

A few Member States

–

including Cyprus, Estonia, Germany and Finland

–

indicated that

adaptability to climate change was a factor in the design and prioritisation of measures. In

Denmark, some measures were designated as having a high priority for implementation as they

were derived from municipal climate change mitigation and adaption plans.

The FRMPs in a few Member States described methods to check the effectiveness of measures

in the face of climate change scenarios. In Estonia, actions under the FRMPs were assessed for

their climate sensitivity (see the box below). In Germany, LAWA (the national working group

on water and floods) carried out a climate-proofing check of all measure categories, to assess

their adaptability to a changing climate. This work did not, however, cover single measures.

In the United Kingdom, two of the five FRMPs assessed

–

those for the English part of the

Solway Tweed UoM (UK02) and for the Severn (UK09)

–

state that allowances for climate

change will be built into flood risk management works: for example, the Severn FRMP refers

to larger foundation walls and raising flood defences. The Severn FRMP states that climate

change will be addressed by strengthening infrastructure inspection and maintenance. In

Germany, the FRMPs for the Danube (specifically, the Bavaria FRMP in UoM DE1000) and

Schlei Trave UoM (DE9610) state that a safety margin of 0.5m is added when planning dykes

to deal with the possible impacts from climate change.

Box 39 - Assessing measures for their sensitivity to climate impacts

196

European Commission, An EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change, COM(2013) 216 final, 2013.

134

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Estonia,

the specific actions (i.e., single projects) were assessed for their climate sensitivity. The

FRMPs note that climate sensitivity was assessed more thoroughly for construction actions,

especially when compared to administrative and advisory actions, due to the short-term nature of the

latter. Actions determined to have high climate sensitivity include: improving flood protection of

existing sewage treatment plants by constructing protective walls or elevating the surface in areas

prone to flooding, improving protection of drinking water systems (wells and bore wells, pumping

stations, water pipes) from flooding and addressing pollution risks to drinking water during flood

events. In addition, NWRMs are usually categorised as being highly climate-sensitive, due to the

long timeframes indicated for them (up to 100 years).

10.4. No-regret measures to address climate change

The FRMPs in several Member States identified measures that address climate change with a

no-regret approach.

One area for such measures is

natural water retention measures (NWRMs).

In the United

Kingdom, the FRMPs for Solway Tweed and Severn (cited above) both state that identifying

locations to work with natural processes can help improve resilience to climate change.

Poland’s FRMP for the Oder (PL6000), there is a single measure

to increase water retention in

forests includes the analysis of retention in connection with the adaptation of forests and

forestry to climate change. In Slovakia the FRMPs highlight that afforestation measures and

water retention measures, including the construction of reservoirs, are appropriate tools for

minimising the impacts of climate change on the likelihood and potential adverse

consequences of flooding.

In general, NWRM are nature-based solutions that can help to adapt to climate change by

preserving or restoring ecosystems

197

. As noted in section 6, many FRMPs refer to NWRM

among their measures, more than those that identified the role of NWRMs in addressing

climate change.

The FRMPs across several Member States s

–

including Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Germany,

Italy, Luxembourg, Romania and Spain

–

refer to measures to further

study

climate change.

The FRMPs in Germany mention that several studies have been commissioned, for example, to

link climate modelling to flood risk management.

197

European Commission, EU policy document on NWRM, Technical Report - 2014

–

082, 2014.

135

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Two FRMPs mention working with

insurance:

the Severn FRMP (UK09) refers to a measure

that involves working with the insurance industry to make the best use of risk information

under a changing climate. The Adaptation Strategy calls for promoting insurance and other

financial products for resilient decision-making

198

; as noted in section 6, however, very few

measures in the FRMPs address the insurance sector. The FRMP in Cyprus contains two

measures for insurance (see section 8.7.6 above), both of which make reference to climate

change.

The FRMPs in only one Member State refer to addressing climate change via

land use

planning:

several Finnish FRMPs include land use planning measures such as updating

building sites at low elevations at risk of flooding so as to take into account climate change

impacts on flood levels.

In several cases, FRMPs refer to climate change measures set out in other plans and strategies:

In Estonia, measures to address flood risks in the face of climate change were included in the

Implementation Plan of the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (approved 2017). In Poland,

the National Strategy for Adaption to Climate Change also includes such measures, especially

with regard to reducing pollution risks in flood-prone zones.

10.5. Summary of good practices and areas for further development

In terms of

good practices,

the FRMPs in several Member States provided a clear overview of

potential climate change impacts on flooding. In a few Member States, methods to assess the

adaptability or sensitivity of measures (climate proofing) to climate change were used,

including for the prioritisation of measures. Some Member States, including Germany, Cyprus

and the United Kingdom, have incorporated climate change in the design of measures. A few

Member States identified specific measures that would address climate impacts in a no-regret

manner.

With regard to

areas for further development,

many Member States did not provide strong

attention to climate change

–

for several, the FRMPs hardly address the issue; however, it

should be noted that the FD requires increased attention to climate change impacts from the

second cycle onwards (starting already at the PFRA stage). Still, at the same time it is

reasonable to expect that preparation in this area (based on existing knowledge) will have

started in the Member States prior to the second cycle, i.e. during the first cycle (or even

198

European Commission, “An EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change”, COM(2013) 216 final, 2013.

136

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

earlier). It would be equally reasonable to expect that ongoing work would be referred to in the

first FRMPs, as was the case for some Member States.

References to national adaptation strategies were found in only about half of the FRMPs,

suggesting that opportunities for synergies on actions for adaptation are not being exploited

adequately. Moreover, relatively few examples of measures to study climate impacts on

flooding at the regional level were seen across the Plans assessed.

Given that the FRMPs in most Member States did not address climate change in depth, it is

expected there shall be greater attention to this issue in the next planning cycle, as per Article

14 of the FD.

On this basis, the following recommendations can be made for the preparation of the second

FRMPs:



A greater degree of harmonisation, ideally at the RB level, could support Member

States in addressing climate change flood related uncertainties in their FRMPs: It

should be useful to identify and review across RBs districts and regions, common

scenarios and carry out research on climate impacts for Member States to consider

in the preparation of their Plans by e.g. making appropriate use of EU modelling

tools such as those available through the Copernicus Climate Change Service

199

Member States should ensure coordination between their FRMPs and national

adaptation strategies.



Member States should indicate in their second-cycle FRMPs where specific adaptation

measures are taken and to what extent mainstreaming has taken place in the design of

measures.

199

https://climate.copernicus.eu/

137

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Part B. International coordination within the framework of the

Floods Directive

11.

Overview of international

management in the EU

cooperation

for

flood

risk

There is long standing bilateral or multilateral cooperation established between the Member

States in the area of water management that predates the introduction of the WFD and the FD.

Next to the assessment of the 1

FRMPs under the FD, a desk-based assessment of this cross-

border cooperation was carried out on the basis of (1) the transboundary RB level international

FRMPs (iFRMP) and (2) the national FRMPs, to ascertain how the FD has influenced this

cooperation, and with a view to making recommendations towards further reinforcing it. The

findings of this assessment are therefore constrained by the choice of the aspects examined

(which align to the aspects assessed for the national FRMPs) and by the amount of information

contained in the reviewed documents.

Part 2 of the FRMP European Overview presents an assessment of the application of the

Directive at the iRBD/iUoM level. It aims to provide a view from the outside, thus supporting

the implementation of the Directive by River Commissions and Member States s (and non-EU

countries) over future implementation cycles. A series of fact sheets for the international RBs

is provided separately and describes co-operation in more detail.

The overview is based on the information reported by Member States to the WISE, previous

national and EU overview reports on PFRA and FHRM published by the European

Commission

200

and the national and international Flood Risk management Plans (FRMP and

iFRMPs).

27 RBs were chosen for the assessment (see Table 16 for an overview). RBs shared with

Greece (five iRBDs) and Ireland (three iRBDs) could not be assessed due to the delayed

reporting. In addition, RBs shared between Lithuania-Latvia-(Russia)-(Belarus) (three iRBDs),

one basin shared between Italy and France

201

and four iRBDs shared between Sweden-Norway

were not assessed.

200

201

Available under

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm

Italy has applied Art 13(1)(b) for all UOMs and no PFRA reporting was carried out. Italy clarified that a

Memorandum of Understanding was signed in 2013 (“Protocollo d’intesa transfrontaliera per il bacino

idrografico del fiume Roja e dei suoi affluenti”) with the aim of carrying out international coordination

138

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

11.1. Main elements of the FD related to international issues

Member States shall coordinate their flood risk management practices

202

in shared RBs,

including with third counties, and shall in solidarity not undertake measures that would

increase the flood risk in neighbouring countries. Member States should take into consideration

long term developments, including climate change, as well as sustainable land use practices in

the flood risk management cycle. Article 8 of the FD requires that Member States shall ensure

coordination with the aim of producing one single iFRMP, or a set of FRMPs coordinated at

the level of the iRBD or iUoM.

11.2. Types of international coordination

According to the type of coordination mechanism that has been established by the Member

States in the different iRBDS/iUOM, four main categories have been identified in the context

of this assessemnt

203

Category 1 RBs

which are iRBDS/iUOMs with (a) formal international

agreement(s), an international coordinating body and an iFRMP produced by this

international body;

Category 2 RBs

which are iRBDS/iUOMs with (a) formal international

agreement(s), an international coordinating body, but no iFRMP;

(c)

Category 3 RBs

which are iRBDS/iUOMs with (a) formal international

agreement(s), but no international coordinating body and no iFRMP;

Category 4 RBs

which are iRBDS/iUOMs with no formal international agreement,

no international coordinating body and no iFRMP.

An overview of the identified categories is given in Table 15.

Table 15

Category

Different types of international co-ordination in relation to the Flood Directive

Formal international

International coordinating

IFRMP produced

activities under Directives 2000/60/EC (the WFD) and 2007/60/EC (the FD). In addition, several Interreg

projects were launched in the last years one of which “Concert-Eaux” is still ongoing. In addition, the FRMP

LIGURIA UOM, which is included in the Northern Apennines RBMP approved by Decree of the President of

the Council of Ministers on 27th of October 2016, contains information on the above described activities.

202

See Article 5(2), Article 7(1), Article 7(4), Article 8 and Annex A.II(3) of the Directive.

203

Other categories might exist, but have not been identified in the context of this assessment.

139

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

agreement

Yes

body

Yes

The assessment suggests that despite the absence of river basin commissions, there is notable

cooperation between Germany and Denmark, Sweden and Finland, Latvia and Estonia and

Spain and Portugal.

The map in Annex 4 shows the RB assessed.

Table 16

List of selected iRBDs/iUoM for which an assessment was carried out

International RBs

Danube

204

Riparian EU Member States /Non-EU

countries

Austria, Bulgaria, The Czech Republic, Germany,

Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Slovenia,

Slovakia

Non-EU countries: Switzerland, Albania, Bosnia

and Herzegovina, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova,

Montenegro, FYROM

205

Austria, The Czech Republic, Germany, Poland

Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy,

Luxembourg, The Netherlands

Non-EU countries: Switzerland, Liechtenstein

Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, The

Netherlands

The Czech Republic, Germany, Poland

Belgium, France, The Netherlands

Spain, Portugal

Italy, Slovenia

Poland

Non-EU countries: Moldova, Ukraine

Germany, The Netherlands

Finland, Sweden

Finland

Non-EU

countries:

Norway

206

, Russia

Category

Category 1

Elbe

Rhine

Meuse

Odra

Scheldt

Duero/Douro

Guadiana

Miño/Minho

Tagus (Tajo/Tejo)

Isonzo/Soča

Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru

Ems

Tornio/Torne

Teno/Tana

204

Within the Danube an additional sub-catchment FRMP for the Sava is under development.

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

206

Norway is not implementing the FD.

205

Category 2

140

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Category

Category 3

International RBs

Garonne/ (Cantabrico

Oriental)

Garonne/ (Ebro)

Vistula

Pregolya

Torne Bothanian Bay

Vidaa/Wiedau

207

Krusaa/Krusau

208

Gauja/Koiva

East Estonia

Riparian EU Member States /Non-EU

countries

France, Spain

Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania

Non-EU countries: Ukraine, Belarus

Poland, Lithuania

Non-EU countries: Russia

Finland, Sweden

Non-EU countries: Norway

Denmark, Germany

Italy, France

Non-EU countries:

Switzerland

Estonia, Latvia

Non-EU countries: Russia

Finland

Non-EU countries: Norway, Russia

Finland

Non-EU countries:

Norway, Russia

Lithuania, Poland

Non-EU countries: Russia, Belarus

Germany, Denmark

Italy

Non-EU countries:

Switzerland

Category 4

Kemijoki

209

Teno/Tana

Nemunas/Nieman/Nema

n/Nyoman

Schlei Trave

Eider

Eastern Alps (Adige)

It should be noted that the categories might differ from the categories applied under the WFD’s

equivalent assessment because of different agreements made for the management of flood risk.

The table below lists those RBs where no assessment was carried out due to absence of

information through FD implementation channels for the national parts of the RBs.

The transboundary rivers shared by Denmark and Germany are the Vidaa/Wiedau and the Krusaa/Krusau

rivers. Vidaa-Krusaa is part of the Eider and Schlei/Trave RBD in Germany, and make up the whole of the

iRBD in Denmark (Internationalt Vanddistrikt DK4).

208

See footnote above.

209

Finland clarified that only a very small part of the RB is in Russia (2,9%) and an even smaller part in Norway.

These parts are very sparsely populated small upstream catchments with only a very little human or hydrological

impact on the Kemijoki RB. In addition, no flood risk issues have been identified in these parts from the work of

the Finnish-Russian transboundary commission.

141

207

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Table 17

List of iRBDs/iUoM for which an assessment was not carried out

International River Basin

Shannon/North Eastern

Neagh Bann

North Western

Drin

Aoos/Vjosa

Nordland

Troendelag

Bothanin Bay

Skagerrak and Kattegat

Lielupe

Venta

Daugava

Mesta-Nestos

Struma-Strymonas

Central Macedonia

Riparian EU Member States /Non-EU

Member States

The United Kingdom, Ireland

Greece

Non-EU countries: Albania, FYROM

Greece

Non-EU countries: Albania

Sweden

Non-EU countries: Norway

Sweden

Non-EU countries: Norway

Sweden

Non-EU countries: Norway

Sweden

Non-EU countries: Norway

Lithuania, Latvia

Non-EU countries: Russia, Belarus

Bulgaria, Greece

Greece

Non-EU countries: FYROM, Serbia

11.3. Overview of international cooperation and coordination frameworks

11.3.1. Overview of international coordinating bodies, international agreements or

conventions

For all Category 1 and 2 RBs that were part of the assessment, international coordinating

mechanisms are in place. For the Category 1 RBs, International Commissions have been set up

that are coordinating the work for the entire iRBD among riparian countries. All coordinating

bodies have a specific working group that addresses flood management.

For the Category 3 RBs international cooperation is mainly based on a number of agreements.

Hence, coordination is performed by the different governing bodies or working groups based

on the international agreements, but few information on the nature of the tasks performed is

available. An overview of international coordinating mechanisms can be found in Annex 5.

142

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

In the

RB coordination activities have only been carried out for to the SEA of the Italian

FRMP: Institutional representatives of France and Switzerland were consulted with regards to

the cross-border portions of the Po basin. No further known coordination activities have been

put in place for the preparation of the Italian FRMP (IT) in the Po.

The

Eastern Alps

FRMP (IT) explains that, for the international RBD Adige, due to the

limited territorial extension (only 1.09% of its surface is in Switzerland) and the absence of

particular issues related to the management of flood risks, no agreement has been signed

between the two states, nor the development of a shared plan was necessary. Slovenia reported

only international coordination activities in relation to the

Danube

and the

Sava

RBs but not in

relation to the

Eastern Alps.

In the cases of the

Gauja/Koiva

RB and the

East Estonia

RB no information was reported in

the national FRMPs (EE, LV) or WISE regarding any kind of international cooperation

210

For the

Nemunas/Nieman/Neman/Nyoman

RB little information was reported by Poland,

where it is stated that no APSFR were identified and no iFRMPs were prepared.

The

Kemijoki

RB is shared between Finland, Norway and Russia. According to information

provided by Finland to WISE, there is no international coordination in place as no flood risk

issues have been identified

211

11.3.2 Financial resources for joint co-operation

For all Category 1 RBs it is not clear if financial resources for joint cooperation (other than for

the functioning of the international commissions) have been made available by the

participating Member States. The iFRMPs do not provide any information on whether there is

financing for joint activities and projects. In the iFRMP of the Danube it is indicated which

financial instruments are planned to be used for joint cooperation.

Estonia and Latvia informed that an agreement was signed on 24/10/2003 between the Ministry of

Environment of the Republic of Latvia and the Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Estonia on co-

operation in protection and sustainable use of trans-boundary watercourses. The agreements provided for the

establishment of groups of experts from the competent authorities which convene regularly to exchange

information and to coordinate issues important for the development of the RBMP and the FRMP. Latvia and

Estonia also informed that there are no trans-boundary flood risk areas (APSFR) within the Gauja/Koiva RB

Estonia informed that there are no trans-boundary flood risk areas within the East Estonia RB. Therefore, there

are no transboundary flood hazard and risk maps, nor flood risk management plans.

211

Finland informed that only a very small part of the RB is in Russia (2,9%) and an even smaller part in Norway.

These parts are very sparsely populated small upstream catchments with only a very little human or

hydrological impact on the Kemijoki RB. In addition, no flood risk issues have been identified in these parts

from the work of the Finnish-Russian transboundary commission.

143

210

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Similarly, for the Category 2 RBs no information is available on whether financial resources

for joint cooperation have been made available. There is also no information on the financing

for joint activities and projects

212

. Only for the

Duero

RB one measure (M24: Elaboración de

estudios de mejora del conocimiento sobre la gestión del riesgo de inundación

–

Preparation of

studies to improve flood risk management knowledge) refers to the costs of international

cooperation, but no costs are specified.

Finally, also for the six Category 3 RBs it is not clear if financial resources for joint

cooperation have been made available. There is also no information on the financing for joint

activities and projects. Only for the

Vistula

RB it is stated that there are no investment

activities in the

Vistula

RB that could have cross-border effects. Countries in the

Vistula

(also those outside the EU) are being kept informed about any activates/projects carried out or

planned in this RB during the bilateral commission meetings.

As there is in general little information about financing related to the implementation of

measures in transboundary RBs, the level of commitment and ambition to reduce flood risk

and impacts on a common basis, with this particular aspect in mind as an indicator, remains

unclear.

11.4. Conclusions from previous phases of the flood risk management cycle

in transboundary RBs

Article 4 of the FD requires Member States to undertake a PFRA for each RBD, UoM or the

portion of an iRBD or iUoM lying within their territory.

11.4.1 International coordination of risk assessment

Articles 4 and 5 of the FD require Member States to coordinate the PFRA and to identify areas

of potentially significant flood risk (APSFR) for each iRBD, or iUoM or portions thereof lying

within their territory.

For all Category 1 RBs a coordination of the PFRA at international level has taken place.

In the

Danube

RB an updated version of the APSFR map published in the PFRA report in

2011 was developed. Especially the determination of transboundary APSFR was coordinated.

212

Slovenia informed of the Slovenian-Italian VISFRIM strategic flood risk reduction project in the Isonzo/Soca

which

includes

many

common

flood

risk

reduction

activities.

https://www.ita-

slo.eu/sites/default/files/Graduatorie_strategici_lestivce_strateski_Ita-Slo_05_2018.pdf

144

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Transboundary APSFRs were defined by the ICPDR’s Flood Protection

Expert Group as any

area (in the transboundary reach of a river) that has been assigned as transboundary APSFR by

at least one country. The assignment was discussed then further at the bilateral level. If the

transboundary character of an APSFR is regarded as not yet agreed by one country, this is

shown on the map. For a river crossing a border, the area of common interest is assigned as a

transboundary APSFR. The extent of this area of common interest has to be agreed by the

neighbouring countries. The ICPDR agreed that two scenarios (medium and low probability)

are relevant for the level of the iRBD. Only fluvial flooding was considered.

In the

Rhine

RB, the PFRA has been coordinated on the international level by the ICPR

including an updating of the Interactive Rhine Atlas of 2001, now available as interactive

Rhine Atlas 2015. The iFRMP also provides maps of APSFRs for the whole Rhine RB

including transboundary APSFRs. A special report on the identification of APSFRs within the

whole RB is available. There is no information on which sources of flooding were considered.

For the

Meuse

RB, the iFRMP states that each of the bordering countries has developed its risk

assessment, but for water bodies crossing the borders bilateral coordination has taken place. A

map with APSFRs in the iRBD is presented in the iFRMP together with a table that shows the

transboundary waters and gives some basic information on how the coordination between the

countries was organised. Only fluvial flooding was considered.

In the

Elbe

RB, the risk assessment was coordinated through the working group under the Elbe

Commission. Austria and Poland have not identified APSFRs within the Elbe, but Germany

and the Czech Republic did. The iFRMP states that there was a workshop held between the

Czech Republic and Germany to discuss and compare methodologies for the PFRA. While the

methodologies themselves were not coordinated during their development, the results of the

methodologies

–

i.e. the identification of APSFRs

–

were compared to ensure that the different

methodologies nevertheless resulted in the same areas, which they did. It is unclear whether the

sources of flooding considered in the transboundary flood risk areas are the same between the

Czech Republic and Germany. The iFRMP states that in the Czech Republic fluvial floods

caused by regional precipitation were taken into account whereas flooding from heavy rain

leading to flash floods is only locally important and has not resulted in the designation of

APSFRs and that groundwater causing floods was not taken into account. In Germany,

generally, coastal and fluvial floods were taken into account. Other types of flooding have not

been considered as significant.

145

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

The iFRMP for the

Odra

RB states the Member States have exchanged the necessary

information to carry out the risk assessment and to produce the relevant maps. However, the

detailed risk assessment was different in the countries and is described separately for each

Member State. Furthermore, the potential adverse consequences of future floods considered in

the different Member States are different. No transboundary APSFRs were identified.

In the

Scheldt

RB the PFRAs were based on national approaches, but Member States have

exchanged information through the international commission during the preparation of the

PFRA. Transboundary APSFRs were identified. The iFRMP includes a description of the

commonalities and differences between countries’ PFRA. The sources of flooding that were

considered in the PFRA depend on the geography of the regions. The Netherlands, France and

the Flemish region of Belgium have considered sea water flooding and river flooding. France

has also discussed surface run-off and groundwater flooding in one section, but no run-off

flood risk was calculated. In the Belgium region of Brussels river flooding, groundwater

flooding, surface run-off, and pluvial flood risks have been analysed, while in the region of

Wallonia river flooding and surface run-off were taken into account.

In the four

Spanish/Portuguese

Category 2 RBs it is not clear whether the risk assessment has

been coordinated on an international level as no specific information is provided in the national

FRMPs (Spain, Portugal). Only for the

Guadiana

RB, three transboundary APSFRs were

identified according to the national reports: Two fluvial APSFRs (ES040_EXT_019 (Guadiana

X) & ES040_AND_001 (Guadiana XI)) and one coastal APSFR (ES040_AND_008), but no

joint flood risk map has been drawn up. There is no information on whether the sources of

flooding considered in the common APSFRs are the same.

For the

Isonzo/Soča

RB, during a meeting of the Permanent Bilateral Commission for Water

Management, flood hazard and flood risk maps already prepared and available for the

respective parts of the iRBD were presented

213

. The text of the FRMP (Italy) explains that the

measures to manage flood risk were subject to coordination rather than the risk assessment

itself. No transboundary APSFRs were identified. The same applies to the

Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru

RB.

For the

Ems

RB, the document on international coordination states that the methodologies

used in both Member States are different, but coordination and data exchange during the risk

assessment has happened and the results are comparable. In Germany the sources of flooding

213

Slovenia informed that in a meeting of the Permanent Bilateral Commission for Water Management in 2012

information exchange on the PFRA and the harmonisation of APSFR’s in the RB took place.

http://www.statika.evode.gov.si/fileadmin/vg_komisije/SLO-IT-zasedanje_december%202012.pdf

146

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

that were considered are fluvial and coastal flooding, while the Netherlands considered fluvial,

pluvial, coastal flooding and flooding from artificial water bearing infrastructure. The

transboundary APSFRs that were identified are Haren-Rütenbrock-Kanal and the Ems Estuary.

The coordination of the risk assessment in the

Torne

RB is summarised in Appendix 6 of the

FRMP for Haparanda. There is no information on how the coordination was performed, but the

results of the coordination are given

214

. No transboundary APSFRs were identified.

Flood risk in

Teno/Tana

RB has been jointly assessed between Finland and Norway and it is

very low or even non-existent and no APSFR has been designated.

The Finnish-Norwegian

Transboundary Water Commission has also acknowledged the low flood risk in the area and the

cooperation is presently focusing on other aspects such as implementation of the WFD and

fisheries.

For the Category 3 RBs only very limited information on international coordination or

transboundary APSFRs is available. For the

Garonne-Eastern Cantabrian

RB no

information on any international coordination of the risk assessment was provided.

Transboundary APSFRs were identified, but the information provided in the national FRMPs

(Spain, Portugal) is not matching. According to the Spanish FRMP (ES017) there are two

transboundary APSFRs (Irún-Hondarribia and regatas Ugarana y Lapitxuri), while the French

FMP (FRF) identifies one shared APSFR, the Basque coastline. The sources of flooding that

are considered are not entirely overlapping for the two Member States. In the Garonne-

Cantabrico RB the Spanish FRMP (ES017) mentions that fluvial and marine flooding were

considered, while in the French FRMP (FRF) it is stated that overflows of watercourses,

marine submersions, urban or agricultural runoff, rising groundwater, rising mountain torrents

and ruptures or failures of hydraulic structures are taken into account. No further information is

available for any of the other Category 3 RBs.

An overview on where transboundary flood risk areas have been identified is provided in the

table below.

214

Finland informed that in addition, a joint report on the PFRA was prepared in 2011 and the coordination is

briefly described in the national FRMPs.

147

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Table 18

Overview on whether transboundary APSFRs have been identified for the

iUOM/iRBD

Category

iRBD

Danube

Rhine

Meuse

Elbe

Odra

Scheldt (Escaut)

Duero/Douro

Guadiana

Miño/Minho

Tagus/Tajo/Tejo

Isonzo/Soča/Soca

Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru

Ems

Tornio/Torne

Teno/Tana

Garonne (Cantabrico)

Garonne (Ebro)

Vistula

Pregolya

Schlei/Trave

Eider

Transboundary APSFRs identified

for the iRBD/iUOM

Yes

11.4.2. Conclusions of the PFRA phase for the entire international UoM/RBD

For only a part of the RBs the conclusions of the PFRA are presented for the entire

iRBD/iUOM, namely for three of the Category 1 RBs, none of the Category 2 RBs and for

three of the Category 3 RBs. Table 19 below provides an overview.

Category 3

Category 2

Category 1

148

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Table 19

Overview of whether results of the PFRA were presented for the entire

IRBD/iUoM or not

Category

Danube

Rhine

Category 1

Meuse

Elbe

Odra

Scheldt (Escaut)

Duero/Douro

Guadiana

Minho/Lima

Tagus/Tajo

Isonzo/Soča

Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru

Ems

Tornio/Torne

Teno/Tana

Garonne (Cantabrico)

Category 3

iRBD

Conclusions of PFRA presented

for the entire iRBD/iUOM

Yes

(maps, no

conclusions)

(maps, no

conclusions)

(maps, no

conclusions)

(but only included

in the Spanish

FRMP)

Category 2

Garonne (Ebro)

Vistula

Pregolya

Vidaa/Wiedau

Krusaa/Krusau

11.4.3. Conclusions of the FHRM phase for the entire international UoM/RBD

The FD (Article 6) does not specify which probabilities should be considered for the different

flooding scenarios except for floods with a medium probability where a return period of ≥100

years should be considered.

While in most RBs medium probabilities

refer to a return period of ≥100 years, for the

scenarios addressing low and high probability flooding large differences exist. Table 20 gives

an overview of scenarios considered in the different iRBDs (in case different scenarios were

used at Member States level, ranges of return periods are specified).

149

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Table 20:

Ranges of different return periods used in the iUOM/iRBD for the three

flooding scenarios (in years)

Category

iRBD

Danube

Rhine

Meuse

Elbe

Odra

Scheldt (Escaut)

Duero/Douro

Guadiana

Miño/Minho

Tagus/Tajo

Isonzo/Soča

Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru

Ems

Tornio/Torne

Teno/Tana

Garonne (Cantabrico)

Garonne (Ebro)

Vistula

Pregolya

Vidaa/Wiedau

Krusaa/Krusau

Category 2

Return period for

low probability

flooding

100-1 000

no info

100-1 000

200-1 000

200-500

100-10 000

500-1 000

300- 500

200-1 000

250-10 000

250-1000

500-1 000

no info

200

Return period for

medium probability

flooding

100

25-300

100

No information

100-300

100

100-300

100

no info

100

Return period for

high probability

flooding

no info

10-30

5-25

10-30

10-20

10-30

2-50

10-30

5-50

no info

11.4.4. Joint FHRMs for the transboundary APSFRs

Article 6 of the FD requires Member States to prepare FHRMs. For all Category 1 RBs joint

FHRMs were developed. For the

Danube

RB, detailed information on those maps is provided

in the iFRMP. These maps refer to the different categories human health, economic activities

and environment, but not to cultural heritage

215

. For the other Category 1 RBs, only the

information that common maps are available is provided, but not of the probabilities used for

their preparation. For the Category 2, Category 3 and Category 4 RBs no joint maps exist, with

the exception of the

Ems

RB.

11.4.5. Potential adverse consequences shown in iFRMPs

Only for two of the Category 1 RBs, the

Danube

and the

Elbe,

some of the adverse

consequences associated with flooding are presented in the iFRMPs.

215

Cultural heritage will be added in the second cycle.

150

Category 3

Category 1

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

In the

Danube

RB, there are at least 936 000 people affected by floods with a high probability,

at least 3 721 000 people affected by floods with medium probability and at least 6 734 000

people affected by floods with low probability. In relation to economic activities

approximately 29 000 km

of agricultural areas are potentially affected by low probability

floods. A significant share of the urban areas is potentially affected by low probability floods

in Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovakia and The Czech Republic, while the largest urban

area potentially affected by low probability floods is in Hungary (783 km

). The iFRMP also

provides some numbers that relate to the risk to the environment, e.g. numbers of Integrated

Pollution Prevention and Control

216

(IPPC) and Seveso Directive

217

installations affected by

floods that could cause pollution and drinking water and recreational areas that are at risk of

flooding. Floods with high probability affect 146 installations and 241 drinking water and

recreational water areas, floods with medium probability affect 337 installations and 413

drinking water and recreational water areas and floods with low probability affect 617

installations and 796 drinking water and recreational water areas in the Danube RB.

In the

Elbe

RB 323 942 people may be affected by low probability floods in the Czech

Republic and 1.57 million in Germany, 103 104 by medium probability floods in the Czech

Republic and 377 039 in Germany and 26 232 by high probability floods in the Czech

Republic and 104 380 in Germany. General economic areas at flood risk are only specified for

medium probability floods with 103 areas in the Czech Republic and 235 in Germany. Risks to

the environment are specified for affected Pollutant Release and Transfer Register

218

(PRTR)

systems. For cultural heritage sites affected, specific sites are listed but are not linked to

probability scenarios. Five sites are mentioned in Germany and two are mentioned in the

Czech Republic.

Information on adverse consequences associated with floods is not available for any of the

Category 2, Category 3 and Category 4 RBs.

216

Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial

emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control),

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075

217

Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-

accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive

96/82/EC,

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32012L0018

218

http://prtr.eea.europa.eu/#/home

151

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

11.5.Joint objectives and measures for flood risk management

11.5.1. Setting of joint objectives in iUoMs/iRBDs

The FD foresees that the FRMP for each UoM sets objectives for the management of flood

risks within the areas covered by the Plan. The objectives should focus on reducing the adverse

consequences of flooding to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic

activity.

In most Category 1 RBs common objectives for flood risk management have been established

on the international level.

For the

Danube

RB, the ICPDR has agreed upon the following objectives for flood risk

management with the Member States: Avoidance of new risks, reduction of existing risks,

strengthening resilience, raising awareness and the solidarity principle. These objectives focus

on the reduction of potential adverse consequences of flooding for human health, the

environment, cultural heritage and economic activity and address all aspects of flood risk

management focusing on prevention, protection, preparedness, including flood forecasts and

early warning systems and taking into account the characteristics of the Danube RB. The

objectives are not quantified and are in line with the ones established nationally by the riparian

Member States.

Similar joint objectives have been established for the management of flood risk at the

international level of the

Rhine

RB. The iFRMP for the Rhine details the different objectives

as follows: avoid new, unacceptable, risks; reduce existing risks to an acceptable level; reduce

adverse consequences during a flood event and reduce adverse consequences after a flood

event. In Annex 4 of the iFRMP there is an assessment that shows how the different objectives

are reflected at the Member States level. The assessment shows that the general targets of flood

risk management on the national and international level are the same in the whole basin.

In the

Meuse

RB the joint objectives for flood risk management have been established by the

five Member States. The objectives are defined at strategic level and operational levels. The

strategic level objectives which are listed in the iFRMP are:



Joint and efficient responsibility based on the solidarity principle: The aim is to

determine the most appropriate level so as not to take higher-level measures which

can be implemented more efficiently at the local level;

152

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel



Solidarity in the case of flooding;

Proportionality of measures: Creation of a prioritization program, if possible on the

basis of a CBA.

The three operational objectives, which were derived based on the national objectives defined

by the five Member States, are:



Effective international coordination of measures with transboundary effects;

Improvement of the flood forecasting and warning;

Improve flood risk knowledge.

The iFRMP for the

Elbe

RB details the different objectives as defined by the Czech Republic

and Germany. Whereas they do not appear to have been commonly developed, the objectives

set by the Czech Republic and Germany are very similar. In the Czech Republic the most

important objective is to reduce the risk to inhabitants due to floods, as well as reduce risk on

economic activities, cultural and historical areas, taking into account the precautionary

principle. Three general objectives were set: 1) Prevent the emergence of new risks and to

reduce the size and areas with an unacceptable risk; 2) Reduce flood risk and 3) Improve the

precaution of inhabitants, the resilience of buildings, infrastructure, economic and other

activities against the negative effects of floods. In Germany, four general objectives were set at

national level: 1) Avoid new risks in flood risk areas; 2) Reduce existing risks in flood risk

areas; 3) Reduce the adverse effects during a flood and 4) Reduce the adverse effects after a

flood.

For the

Odra

RB, the iFRMP includes a table with joint objectives for the management of

flood risk at the international level which are then further detailed into sub-targets. There is no

clear description how the joint objectives have been agreed on. The general objectives are: 1)

Avoid new risks; 2) Reduction of existing risks;(3) Reduction of adverse consequences during

a flood event and 4) Reduction of adverse consequences after a flood event. The objectives are

the same for all countries of the ICPO.

The objectives set in the iFRMP for the

Scheldt

RB were based on a comparison between the

objectives set in the national plans and are shared objectives. They focus on: 1) strengthening

transboundary cooperation for the planning and monitoring of measures with a transboundary

153

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

impact; 2) improving information sharing on floods and flood warning and 3) improving

knowledge exchange to support decisions. The iFRMP notes also that all Member States and

regions mainly aim to reduce the number of fatalities and economic damage, but also have

objectives for the protection of habitats, with attention to the maximum conservation of

associated protected habitats and species.

From the situations described above, it becomes evident that all Category 1 RBs, except the

Scheldt and Meuse, have largely similar objectives (particularly the Danube and the Rhine, but

also in some RBs classified into other Categories), even if they are phrased in somewhat

different ways. This could a reflection of riparian countries being members of more than one

river commissions:



avoidance of new risks,

reduction of existing risks and

reduction of adverse consequences.

For the Category 2 RBs joint objectives for the management of flood risk at the international

level have not been established in the four

Spanish/Portuguese

RBs. For the

Isonzo/Soča

at the meeting of the Permanent Bilateral Commission for Water Management held in Miren

(Slovenia) in October 2014, the state of implementation of the FD was discussed and the

participants noted that both parties had common objectives and decided to coordinate their

implementation. However, no more explicit information is provided on these objectives. It is

therefore assumed that the objectives they refer to are those defined at the national level: To

reduce the potential negative consequences that floods may have on human health, the

environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. No information for the

Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru

and the

Teno/Naatamo/Paatsjoki

RBs is provided. For the

Ems

RB,

the iFRMP (Germany, the Netherlands) details the different objectives as follows: a) avoid

new, unacceptable, risks; b) reduction of existing risks to an acceptable level; c) reduction of

adverse consequences during a flood event and d) reduction of adverse consequences after a

flood event. The national objectives are the same, but they are described in much more detail.

For the

Torne

RB, objectives for flood risk management were compared for the Finnish and

Swedish parts and are mostly the same. These include for instance informing the general public

about flood risk and how one can prepare for a flood with a return period of 50-100 years. In

the Tornio FRMP (Finland) also Haparanda’s (Sweden) objectives are presented and

154

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

similarities and differences are shown in a table.

For none of the Category 3 RBs, joint objectives for the management of flood risk at the

international level have been established. For the

Garonne-Ebro

and the

Garonne

Cantabrico

RBs , according to information provided to WISE by France, ‘an identification of

cross-border issues is to be carried out, which will be followed by the establishment of useful

contacts and cooperation’,

meaning coordination of objectives has not yet taken place, but is to

happen in the future.

For the

Vidaa/Wiedau

and the

Krusaa/Krusau

RBs, objectives have been set. They are: (a)

avoid new, unacceptable, risks; (b) reduction of existing risks to an acceptable level; (c)

reduction of adverse consequences during a flood event and (d) reduction of adverse

consequences after a flood event.

11.5.2. Planned joint and/or coordinated measures for the achievement of joint objectives

Almost for all Category 1 RBs joint coordinated measures were defined. Only for the

Odra

RB no joint measures are specified in the iFRMP. Only for two of the Category 2 and 3 RBs,

the

Isonzo/Soča

and the

Ems,

joint measures were defined. An overview of the joint measures

in each iRBD is given in Table 21.

Table 21

Nr.

219

Joint coordinated measures in the different iRBDs/iUOM

Isonzo/Soca

Description

Danube

Scheldt

Meuse

Rhine

Elbe

M11

M21

M22

M23

No Action, no measure is proposed to reduce the

flood risk in the APSFR or other defined area.

Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the

location of new or additional receptors in flood prone

areas, such as land use planning policies or

regulation.

Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to

remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to

relocate receptors to areas of lower probability of

flooding and/or of lower hazard.

Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to

reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a

219

Numbering according to ‘A User Guide to the Floods Reporting Shemas’ (Technical support in relation to the

implementation of the FD (2007/60/EC)), see:

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/Floods/Floods_603_2016/resources/User%20Guide%20to%20the%20Floods

%20schema%20v6.0.pdf

155

Ems

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Isonzo/Soca

Nr.

219

Description

Danube

Scheldt

Meuse

Rhine

Elbe

flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc...

M24

Prevention, Other prevention, Other measure to

enhance flood risk prevention (may include, flood

risk modelling and assessment, flood vulnerability

assessment, maintenance programmes or policies

etc...).

Protection Natural flood management / runoff and

catchment management, Measures to reduce the flow

into natural or artificial drainage systems, such as

overland flow interceptors and / or storage,

enhancement of infiltration, etc and including in-

channel, floodplain works and the reforestation of

banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow

and store water

Protection, Water flow regulation, Measures

involving physical interventions to regulate flows,

such as the construction, modification or removal of

water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line

storage areas or development of existing flow

regulation rules), and which have a significant impact

on the hydrological regime

Protection, Channel, Coastal and Floodplain Works,

Measures involving physical interventions in

freshwater channels, mountain streams, estuaries,

coastal waters and flood-prone areas of land, such as

the construction, modification or removal of

structures or the alteration of channels, sediment

dynamics management, dykes, etc.

Protection, Surface Water Management, Measures

involving physical interventions to reduce surface

water flooding, typically, but not exclusively, in an

urban environment, such as enhancing artificial

drainage capacities or though sustainable drainage

systems (SuDS)

Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to

enhance protection against flooding, which may

include flood defence asset maintenance programmes

or policies

Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning,

Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting

or warning system

Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning /

Contingency planning, Measure to establish or

enhance flood event institutional emergency response

planning

Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness,

Measure to establish or enhance the public awareness

or preparedness for flood events

Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to

establish or enhance preparedness for flood events to

156

M31

M32

M33

M34

M35

M41

M42

M43

M44

Ems

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Isonzo/Soca

Nr.

219

Description

Danube

Scheldt

Meuse

Rhine

Elbe

reduce adverse consequences

M51

Recovery and Review (Planning for the recovery and

review phase is in principle part of preparedness),

Individual and societal recovery, Clean-up and

restoration activities (buildings, infrastructure, etc),

Health and mental health supporting actions, incl.

managing stress Disaster financial assistance (grants,

tax), incl. disaster legal assistance, disaster

unemployment assistance, Temporary or permanent

relocation, Other

Recovery and Review, Environmental recovery,

Clean-up and restoration activities (with several sub-

topics as mould protection, well-water safety and

securing hazardous materials containers)

Recovery and Review, Other, Other recovery and

review Lessons learnt from flood events Insurance

policies

Other

M52

M53

M61

There is no information in most iFRMP/FRMPs regarding timing of the implementation of

measures. For the

Rhine

RB, for some of the measures, in particular those measures aimed at

lowering the water levels, a timeframe is given with an implementation deadline until 2020.

For the

Isonzo/Soča

RB the FRMP states that transboundary measures will be implemented in

the first phase (2016-18) and the second phase (2019-21).

11.5.3. Joint principles for defining and prioritising measures

In many Category 1 RBs joint principles for defining measures have been agreed on at the

international level.

For the

Danube

RB, Annex 2 chapter 7 of the iFRMP lists transboundary projects supporting

the iFRMP. Several projects or project proposals/ideas presented as transboundary projects

were developed by the ICPDR and/or the EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR,

Priority Area-PA 5 - Environmental Risks

220

) and they shall, i.a.:



reflect the objectives and priorities set in iFRMP;

220

https://www.danubeenvironmentalrisks.eu/

157

Ems

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel



have a transboundary character;

help to implement the measures listed in the Annex.

There is no ranking or prioritization of these projects, as they are all considered as supportive

to the implementation of the iFRMP. In selecting the measures for this Plan, the priority was

given to measures with downstream effect (according to Article 7(4)) of the FD, such as

natural water retention, warning systems, reduction of risk from contaminated sites in

floodplain areas, or exchange of information. The top priority was given to NWRM (water

retention and giving more space to rivers) but the importance of the structural measures was

also recognized.

In the

Rhine

RB, the Member States have agreed upon the following approach for the planning

and implementation of measures:



Regional or local measures which are known not to have any transboundary effects

will be planned and implemented regionally/local;

For regional measures with transboundary effects there will first be an exchange of

information at a bilateral level or within river commissions for sub-basins, as for

example the Moselle (Sarre). Eventually, these measures must be coordinated on a

bilateral or trilateral level in order to find joint solutions;



The measures with regional effects mentioned under the second point above might

also cause supra-regional effects. Therefore, such measures must at the same time

be included in the mutual exchange of information within the ICPR. Due to this

approach, measures with transboundary effects are coordinated throughout the RB.

The effect of planned measures must be determined in common. Aspects of cost-

effectiveness may be taken into account;

Enhancement of national or regional agreements targeted at keeping floodplains

free of all uses; exchange on these activities within the ICPR.



The afore-described approach is applicable to measures such as creating retention areas, dike

relocation, room for the river and measures regulating discharges, the construction or

strengthening of dikes, etc. Joint principles for prioritising measures on an international level

are mentioned in the iFRMP. The iFRMP lists a set of concrete joint measures that seem to be

158

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

a high priority for all Member States and aim at: (i) international coordination of measures (ii)

improving the exchange of information and access to information; (iii) improving flood

forecasting and warning systems and at (iv) implementing measures aimed at lowering the

water levels. The iFRMP states also that for the coordination of measures with supra-regional

effects aspects of cost-effectiveness may be taken into account but no further information is

provided.

For the

Meuse

RB, a joint principle in planning and implementing measures was defined by

one of the objectives on the international level -

the ‘Proportionality of measures’, i.e. the

creation of a prioritization program for measures. It is stated that a ranking of measures was

performed considering the mobilized human, technical and financial resources of all

stakeholders and the expected benefits.

Also, in the

Elbe

RB there are common principles for defining groups of measures. The

individual measures in each group are nationally defined. Each group of measures describes

the principles behind their selection. It is unclear whether there are common principles for

prioritising measures.

In the

Odra

RB there are joint principles for defining and prioritising measures, which relate to

two transnational projects and the agreed ‘flood protection program 2004’. In the latter a list of

priority actions/measures has been agreed on, which is the basis for the joint work. Actions and

priorities are indicated in the national FRMPs, taking into account international agreements,

such as the Polish-German agreement. There is no information in the iFRMP on whether a

cost-benefit analysis was used in the prioritisation and planning of measures with a

transboundary effect.

The iFRMP of the

Scheldt

RB does not state that common principles for defining measured

were adopted. A categorisation of measures (protection, prevention, preparedness and

recovery) is presented, but it is not clear whether this classification was used in the planning of

individual regions/MS. The iFRMP also highlights which criteria are relevant for multi-lateral

discussions. France, Brussels/Belgium and Wallonia/Belgim were still in the process of

preparing their programme of measures (PoM) when the iFRMP was prepared which is why

the relevant chapter of the iFRMP ought to be updated once the national PoMs are finished and

available. The Netherlands and Flanders/Belgium mainly use cost-benefit analysis and a

maximum reduction of loss of lives to prioritise measures. There is no explanation of how

measures with a transboundary effect were prioritised.

159

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

The assessment of the Category 1 RBs points at initial attempts to prioritise measures. It will

be a challenge to assess progress at a later stage, as hardly any information on monitoring the

implementation is provided in the iFRMP. It can be assumed this will be the task of the various

expert groups.

11.5.4. Cost benefit assessments for transboundary measures

The FD suggests that cost-benefit analysis is used to assess measures with transnational

effects.

For all Category 1 RBs there is no information in the iFRMPs on whether a RB-wide cost-

benefit analysis was used in the prioritisation and planning of measures with a transboundary

effect.

For almost none of the Category 2 RBs was information found on joint principles for

prioritising measures or on the use of cost benefit analysis. The exception appears to be the

Isonzo/Soča

RB, where the key joint principle for defining and prioritising measures is to

coordinate the methodology for the evaluation of their costs and benefits, but no further

information is provided.

For none of the Category 3 RBs information on the use of a cost-benefit analysis for

prioritising measures is provided.

It is unclear why CBAs are not widely used in the transboundary context as suggested by the

Directive. The possibilities should be investigated by the expert groups set up by the river

commissions (or explained in the iFRMPs) as they might relate e.g. to methodological

challenges or to different approaches between countries that could not be reconciled in the first

cycle.

11.5.5. Solidarity principle applied at the international level

Article 7(4) of the FD states that: ‘In

the interests of solidarity, flood risk management plans

established in one Member State shall not include measures which, by their extent and impact,

significantly increase flood risks upstream or downstream of other countries in the same River

Basin or sub-basin, unless these measures have been coordinated and an agreed solution has

been found among the Member States concerned in the framework of Article 8.’

160

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

For all Category 1 RBs the respective iFRMPs refer to the solidarity principle. However, in

most cases not very detailed information is provided on how the principle was applied in

practice.

The iFRMP of the

Danube

RB states that the solidarity principle has been applied in the basin:

The ICPDR agreed that the measures with positive downstream effects shall have the key

priority at the basin-wide level planning of joint measures. The Plan states that to avoid the

negative downstream effects, the national legislation shall contain provisions stipulating that

FRMPs shall not include measures which, by their extent and impact, significantly increase

flood risks in other countries.

For the

Rhine

RB, the iFRMP restates Article 7(4) of the FD. However, it remains unclear

how this principle is applied in practice.

The iFRMP of the

Meuse

RB also restates Article 7(4) of the FD. The solidarity principle is

also one of the joint objectives for the management of flood risk at the international level that

have been established by the five Member States. However, also here it remains unclear, how

this is handled in practice.

For the

Elbe

and the

Odra

RBs, the iFRMPs state that Article 7(4) has been applied in the

basin and that the relationship between up and downstream countries plays an important role in

flood risk management within the basin. No information is provided on how this was applied

in practice.

For all Category 2 RBs it is not clear whether the solidarity principle has been applied. Spain

and Portugal refer to the importance of the principle in the national FRMPs, but for all except

one of the RBs (in the

Tagus

the principle of Article 7(4) is reiterated) no further information

is provided. In the FRMP for the Eastern Alps (Italy), Article 7(4) is not mentioned. No

information is provided for the

Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru,

the

Tornio/Torne

and the

Ems

RBs.

All FRMPs related to the Category 3 RBs, cite the principle of solidarity as reflected in Article

7(4)), the practice of it is unclear.

11.6. Consideration of climate change in transboundary RBs

Article 4(2)(d) of the FD requires that Member States, depending on their specific needs, to

already in the first cycle consider the impact of climate change. Further, Article 14 stipulates

161

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

that the impacts of climate change and long-term developments on the occurrence of floods

shall be considered from the second cycle reviews and updates.

The level of detail provided regarding climate change is varying for the different iRBDs. While

there has been a clear effort to take climate change into account in some of the iRBDs, in

others the iFRMP states that it will be taken into account in the future. In general, it can be

stated that consideration of climate change is more developed in those basins where an

international body has been established.

Table 22

Climate change considerations in the iRBD Category 1

International River Basin

Danube

Rhine

Meuse

Elbe

Odra

Scheldt

Climate change considered at the iRB level

yes

The specific chapter on climate change in the iFRMP of the

Danube

RB for instance focuses

on what regional scenarios have been developed and the effects on measures. The information

on the effects on measures does not specify whether such effects were taken into account in the

planning of measures or establishing of objectives. However, a link to the Danube Climate

Adaptation Study developed in 2012 is established. This link is rather general but it is stressed

that adapting flood risk management to climate change issues has to be included in the next

FRMPs.

For the

Rhine

RB more information related to climate change is provided in the iFRMP. The

iFRMP has a specific chapter on how climate change was taken into account in the flood risk

assessment. Aspects covered are: a) impacts of climate change for the Rhine catchment and b)

climate change effects on measures of flood risk management. The chapter first lists basin

wide impacts from climate change based on a common assessment and the effects on flood risk

management measures. Also, following the instructions of the 15

Conference of Rhine

Ministers, the ICPR has drafted a strategy to adapt to climate change. However, it remains

unclear if these scenarios are used on the national level. While climate change is not mentioned

in establishing objectives for the iFRMP, the plan is linking selected measures to climate

change and several of the common measures relate to climate change issues. Many of the

common measures described that are going to be implemented range among no-regret and win-

162

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

win measures. They also have a positive effect on changes of the water balance brought about

by climate change.

For the

Meuse

RB, the joint summary of the IMC states that Member States have started to

work on joint flow patterns based on national climate scenarios. There is no information

regarding whether climate change was considered in the setting of objectives or in the selection

of measures.

The chapter on the PFRA of the iFRMP of the

Elbe

RB has a specific sub-section on how

climate change was taken into account in the assessment. The chapter first lists climate

research projects that have been carried out in the last years within the Elbe region. Some of

these projects are regional or national but the GLOWA project mentioned looked at the Elbe

region as a whole. The chapter also states that a under the Elbe Commission a document was

produced summarizing the previous research, including conclusions. It is not clear, however, if

this resulted in the same climate scenario being used amongst the riparian countries. The

chapter on establishing objectives does not mention climate change.

For the

Oder

RB, the chapter on the PFRA of the iFRMP has as well a specific sub-section on

how climate change was taken into account in the PFRA for each Member State. It focuses on

what regional scenarios have been developed in each Member State and shows that no

common approach was used so far. It is not clear whether the potential effects of climate

change on the risk of flooding have been taken into account when setting objectives.

The iFRMP of the

Scheldt

RB highlights that climate change should be taken into account in

the future. So far, the Netherlands and Belgium/Flanders have taken climate change into

account in their territories when setting objectives. Climate change was not considered in the

setting of joint objectives or in the planning of joint measures.

For the Category 2 RBs, even less information is provided. For the

Spanish/Portuguese

RBs

there is no information if climate change has been considered as an international coordination

issue. Spain refers to previous studies existing on water availability reduction (however not

much linked to flood risk), and explains that further studies will be undertaken, while Portugal

refers to the fact that such studies will be undertaken by 2018 only. For the

Isonzo/Soča

RB,

the FRMP for

Eastern Alps

(Italy) states that, in line with Article 14 of the FD, the impact of

climate change on the occurrence of floods and their effect will be evaluated when reviewing

the plan. The review will take into consideration the Italian National Climate Change Strategy

which has been adopted on 16 June 2015. In the

Ems

RB, climate change is not addressed in

163

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

the coordination document (Germany, the Netherlands), but in the national FRMPs information

is provided. In the

Tornio/Torne

RB, it is not clear if climate change was considered as an

issue for bilateral coordination.

221

Climate change has been considered in parts of five of the international Category 3 RBs, within

the national contexts.

11.7.Monitoring progress in implementing the iFRMP

According to the FD, Member States are required to provide information on the way in which

progress towards implementing the identified measures will be monitored (Annex, part A.II.1).

However, the assessment showed that monitoring is in general not agreed upon at an

international level. In most iFRMP there is no information on a joint monitoring, exceptions

are the

Danube

and the

Meuse

RBs where the working groups are responsible for the joint

monitoring. For the Category 2 RBs, for the

Isonzo/Soča

RB progress in the implementation

of the common measures was discussed in 2016; in the

Ems

RB common monitoring measures

were defined. None of the national FRMPs that correspond to Category 3 RBs provide

information on the joint monitoring of measures at the international level.

11.8.Public consultation in transboundary RBs

Article 10 of the FD requires public consultation process related to the FRMP. The level of

public consultation on the joint/international FRMP varies in the different iRBDs. For some of

the Category 1 RBs extensive public consultation was performed and a well planned joint

/transboundary communication strategy seems to be in place such as for the

Danube,

the

Rhine,

the

Elbe

and the

Odra

RBs, while for most of the other RBs, almost no public

consultation took place. For the

Meuse

and the

Rhine,

the iFRMP was published online on the

websites of the river commissions. The iFRMP of the

Scheldt

(Escaut) and

Meuse

clearly

states that public consultation is seen as a responsibility of the Member States.

For the

Danube

RB, the ICPDR pursues a range of activities with regard to public

participation. These include: 1) public information such as the development of technical public

documents and general publications (e.g. the quarterly magazine Danube Watch); 2)

environmental education, awareness raising and outreach (e.g. the annual river festival Danube

221

Finland and Sweden informed that climate change was included as a topic in joint projects at the PFRA and

FHRM phases. These activities will be strengthen in the 2

cycle.

164

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Day or the teacher’s kit Danube Box) and 3) public consultation activities directly linked to the

development of a RBMP and a FRMP. Public consultation for the development of the iFRMP,

was done in two main steps, in which comments from the public were collected 1) on a

timetable and work programme including public consultation measures and on 2) on the draft

management plan. The opportunity to participate in each of these steps was promoted through

the ICPDR network. For the consultation on the draft iFRMP, a comprehensive approach was

chosen that aimed at stakeholder groups with differing degrees of involvement in water

management issues. To ensure the highest possible transparency, all comments requesting

changes or additions in the draft iFRMP were collected and processed by the relevant ICPDR

expert or task group. A final report was published alongside with the final management plan in

December 2015.

The draft of the first iFRMP for the

Rhine

RB (part A

222

) was published on the ICPR

website

223

on the 22

of December 2014 and was thus available for public participation and

consultation. This online consultation was done in parallel to that of the draft of the second

iRBMP according to the WFD. This was also the case in most EU-MS of the Rhine catchment.

ICPR observers such as NGOs are being involved from the start in the drafting through their

participation in the working groups. Further, during the six months iFRMP online consultation

period, the ICPR received statements and requests for adaptation of the draft.

In the

Elbe

and

Odra

RBs public consultation international workshops on the FRMP took

place. International Forums for both rivers were held to inform the public on the current state

of play of both the WFD and the FD. Summaries of the results of the PFRA for the two

international basins made available to the public. All documents, including the draft FRMPs

and the risk maps were published on the websites of the Elbe and Odra Commissions.

Additionally, for the Elbe an international Elbe Forum on the International FRMP and the

International RBMP was held, while for the Odra an international Conference on the

implementation of the WFD and the FD was organised.

For none of the Category 2 RBs a joint/transboundary communication strategy has been

developed. However, some public consultation of the national FRMPs at the international level

has taken place for the

Spanish/Portuguese

catchments. In the finish FRMP for the

Tornio/Torne

RB, the FRMPs for the Tornio/Torne River includes a table showing several

222

223

Part A equals catchment areas larger than 2,500 km².

www.iksr.org

165

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

meetings and workshops where the flood risk management work has been presented and many

of these events have been joint events

224

For the Category 3 RBs, no iFRMP exists, so generally no joint/transboundary communication

strategy has been developed.

11.9. Cross-cutting issues with the Water Framework Directive

According to Article 9 of the FD the development of the FRMPs is to be carried out in

coordination with that of the RBMPs under the WFD, including on how the environmental

objectives of the WFD have been taken into account in the FRMPs. Both the WFD and the FD

require public participation.

For all Category 1 RBs the development of the iFRMPs was done in consultation with the

iRBMP. This is reflected in the iFRMP and the iRBMP. The information provided in the

iFRMPs for each iRBD is summarized below.

For the

Danube

RB, the iFRMP was developed in consultation with the WFD and since the

ICPDR is responsible for both, the overall coordination of the implementation of the FD and

the WFD in the Danube RB a good prerequisite for maximum use of mutual synergies exists.

Some examples of win-win measures are stated in the iFRMP. To produce the PFRA several

ICPDR Contracting Parties used data that they had collated as part of the WFD process to

assist with their contribution to the overall PFRA for the Danube. Furthermore, the ICPDR has

produced a plan to meet the requirements of the WFD and FD.

For the

Rhine

RB, the iFRMP states that as far as measures are concerned, possible synergies

with the environmental targets of the WFD will be enhanced and the environmental effects of

measures liable to cause a deterioration of the ecological status of water bodies will be reduced

to a minimum. Annex 8 of the iFRMP shows possible synergies between measures of the FD

and measures of the WFD. In most riparian countries of the Rhine, public involvement

concerning the draft of the first FRMP was done in parallel to that of the draft of the second

RBMP.

For the

Meuse

in the Annex of the iFRMP an overview over potential synergies between

measures under the FD and objectives of the WFD is provided. Measures are judged based on

224

In the Finish FRMP the summary of the Plan also exists in Swedish, Mäenkieli and in Northern Sami language

(for the indigenous Sami people)

166

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

whether they support WFD’s objectives, whether they are not relevant for the WFD objectives

or whether they are in conflict with WFD objectives.

According to the iFRMP, the measures planned in the

Elbe

RB were aligned with those under

the WFD and the implementation of both Directives was coordinated, in particular regarding

the improvement of efficiency, information exchange and synergies in achieving the

environmental objectives of the WFD. Measures were grouped into three categories: Measures

that support the objectives of the WFD, measures that cause conflicts, and measures that are no

relevant to the WFD. Similar to the Elbe, the iFRMP of the

Odra

RB has also been developed

in consultation with the WFD. Measures of the FD were coordinated with those under the

WFD to maximise synergies, to ensure information exchange and to ensure that WFD

objectives are met. For both, the Elbe and the Odra it is stated that detailed information can be

found in the national Plans.

For the

Scheldt

RB the iRBMP states that the measures listed in the iFRMP were screened

with respect to their positive/negative effect on the WFD. Further it states that the reporting for

the WFD and the FD is already integrated in the RBMP of Flanders and Brussels, while

Wallonia, the Netherlands and France continue to report in two separate Plans. It is planned

that the International Scheldt Commission will have a role in coordinating measures that have a

transboundary impact.

For the Category 2 RBs information on the coordination with the WFD is only provided for

two RBs. For the

Garonne-Cantabrico

RB and for the

Isonzo/Soča

RB. Both cases concern

coordination meetings of technical experts on synergies between the FRMPs and the

RBMPs.

225

For the Category 3 RBs no information on how the FRMPs were coordinated with the RBMPs

on the international level was provided.

225

The inventory of measures in the FRMP of the Eastern Alps (Italy) indicates for each measure whether there

can be a synergy with the RBMP measures and whether the measure is also adopted in the RBMP (win-win

situation). The inventory of measures in the Slovenian FRMP indicates for each measure whether there can be

a synergy, potential conflict or no interaction with the RBMP measures.

167

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Recommendations for

framework of the FD

transboundary

cooperation

the

Based on the assessment of international coordination within the framework of the FD, the

following recommendations can be made:



iRBD/iUoM falling into Category 1 should strengthen their efforts towards further

development of common methodologies and approaches wherever possible. The

implementation of measures that create clear transboundary wins should be

highlighted in the iFRMPs; as well as using cost benefit analyses more widely with

a view to investing resources in the RBs more efficiently;



iRBD/iUoM currently falling into Categories 2, 3 and 4 should aim to upscale their

coordination; the most advanced amongst them should consider developing an

iFRMP, that is based as far as possible on a joint risk assessment;

For all iRBD/iUoM cooperation with countries outside the EU should continue and

opportunities for reinforcing this cooperation should be sought;

All FRMPs with transboundary relevance should provide more detailed

information on their international coordination activities, so more lessons learned

can be drawn and shared with other RBs in order to trigger EU wide learning and

demonstrate the value added to the citizens benefitting from it;



While for medium probabilities in most basins a 100-year return period is applied,

low and high probabilities vary widely. Wherever possible, low and high

probabilities should be streamlined to reinforce a common understanding of the

flood risks;



Numbers on the potential adverse consequences of flooding at the basin level (e.g.

households potentially impacted) should be provided in jointly elaborated

documents. This will underline the exposure levels and will provide focus;



In the second cycle, climate change considerations should be integrated in the

setting of objectives and in the prioritisation of measures;



168

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel



The priority criteria for the implementation of measures should be further detailed

and efforts should be made to ensure that these internationally agreed priorities are

also reflected on the national level as appropriate;



Monitoring of the implementation of common measures. or measures with

transboundary impact, should be more widely established at the international level

in order to build shared knowledge and increase appreciation amongst authorities

and citizens.



For those iRBDs which have not carried out a public consultation of their iFRMP,

their Plans should be subject to public consultation at the national level to allow for

additional views, increase ownership and the understanding of the international

dimension of the flood risk;



The link with iRBMPs could be strengthened. This would lead to hydro-

morphological measures planned under the iFRMP aligned with Article 4(7) of the

WFD, but also promoting the role of nature based solutions as flood prevention

measures and measures to reach good ecological status;

169

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Annex 1 Member State FRMPs assessed

The table on the following pages lists the national FRMPs assessed.

As noted in section 4, the assessment covered up to five FRMPs in each Member State. Where

Member States prepared a higher number of FRMPs, five of these plans were chosen for

assessment

226

. The choice was based on the following criteria: First, to capture different

methods used (for example in Member States with a federal structure where regions or other

administrative units followed different approaches); second, to capture different types of flood

risks; and third, to include national plans in UoMs that are part of international UoMs.

Member State

Austria

Belgium

FRMPs assessed (UoM code and name of FRMP)

AT1000 : Danube

AT2000: Rhine

AT5000: Elbe

BEEscautSchelde_BR: Scheldt (Brussels region)

BEMaas_VL: Meuse (Flanders region)

BESchelde_VL: Scheldt (Flanders region)

BERhin_RW: Rhine (Walloon region)

BEEscaut_RW: Scheldt (Walloon region)

BG1000: Danube

BG2000: Black Sea

BG3000:East Aegean

BG4000: West Aegean

CY001: Cyprus

HRC: Danube

HRJ: Adriatic

CZ1000: Danube

CZ5000: Elbe

CZ6000: Oder

DK1: Holstebro

DK1: Abenraa

DK1: Odense & Kerteminde

DK2: Slagelse

DK2: Hvidovre

EE1: West-Estonian

EE2: East-Estonian

EE3: Koiva

FIVHA2: Kymijoki-Gulf of Finland: Hamina and Kotka coastal area

FIVHA3: Kokemäenjoki-Archipelago Sea-Bothnian Sea: Kokemäenjoki catchment

FIVHA4: Oulujoki-Iijoki: Kalajoki catchment

FIVHA5: Kemijoki: Kemijoki catchment

FIVHA6: Tornionjoki

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Croatia

The Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

226

A selection of FRMPs was made in the following Member States: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,

Germany, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

170

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Member State

France

Germany

Hungary

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

The Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

FRMPs assessed (UoM code and name of FRMP)

FRA: Scheldt, Somme and coastal waters of the Channel and the North Sea

FRC: Rhine

FRD: Rhone and Coastal Mediterranean

FRF: Adour, Garonne, Dordogne, Charente and coastal waters of Aquitaine

FRL: La Réunion

DE5000: Elbe

DE9610: Schlei Trave

DE4000: Weser

DE2000 Rhine UoM: North Rhine Westphalia

DE1000 Danube UoM: Bavaria

HU1000: Danube

ITA: Eastern Alps RBD

ITE: Central Apennines RBD

ITI023: Sangro interregional basin (joint FRMP with ITR131, Abruzzo Region)

ITR161I020: Puglia Region and the Ofanto River interregional basin

ITR201: Sardinia Region

LVDUBA: Dauguva

LVGUBA: Gauja

LVLUBA: Lielupe

LVVUBA: Venta

LT1100: Nemunas

LT2300: Venta

LT3400: Lielupe

LT4500 : Dauguva

LU000: Rhine

MTMALTA: Malta

NLEM: Ems

NLMS: Meuse

NLRN: Rhine

NLSC: Scheldt

PL1000: Danube

PL2000 : Vistula

PL3000 : Swieza

PL4000 : Jarft

PL5000 : Elbe

PL6000 : Oder

PL6700 : Ucker

PL7000 : Pregolya

PL8000: Nemunas

PL9000 : Dniestr

PTRH3: Douro

PTRH4A: Vouga, Mondego and Lis

PTRH5A: Tagus and West Rivers

PTRH9: Azores

PTRH10 : Madeira

RO5: Buzău–Ialomiţa

RO6: Dobrogea-Litoral

RO9: Somes-Tisa

RO11: Prut-Bârlad

RO1000: Danube

SK30000FD: Vistula

SK40000FD: Danube

SI_RBD_1: Danube

SI_RBD_2: Adriatic

ES017: Eastern Cantabrian

171

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Member State

FRMPs assessed (UoM code and name of FRMP)

ES080: Jucar

ES014: Galician Coast

ES060: Andalusian Mediterranean Basins

ES110: Balearic Islands

SE1: Bothnian Bay (Älvsbyn SE1A8932)

SE2: Bothnian Sea (Falun SE2A6504)

SE3: North Baltic Sea (Stockholm SE3A0336)

SE4: South Baltic Sea (Kristianstad SE4A2980)

SE5: Skagerrak and Kattegat (Karlstad SE5A5704)

UK01: Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01, Scotland)

UK02: Solway (in the Scottish part of UK02, Solway Tweed)

UK02: Solway Tweed (for the English Part of UK02)

UK09: Severn

UKGBNIIENB: Neagh Bann

Sweden

The United Kingdom

172

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Annex 2 Overview of measures by aspect

No Action

Aggregated

Individual

Prevention

Aggregated

4 301

6 795

325

3 291

122

103

111

158

Individual

Protection

Aggregated

5 474

7 519

228

3 017

Individual

Preparedness

Aggregated

3128

369

7 638

347

1 536

2171

2327

1 381

3 275

173

Recovery and review

Aggregated

2346

2612

271

385

Individual

Other

Aggregated

Individual

Grand

Total

15 249

668

199

25 023

1 363

455

107

10 064

883

116

2 484

299

1 413

9 888

3 138

348

790

Individual

459

300

176

142

137

127

175

211

1 549

805

390

2867

231

139

3 127

127

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Annex 3 List of measure aspects and types

No Action

No Action, No measure is proposed to reduce the flood risk in the APSFR or other defined area,

Prevention

Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone

areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation

Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to relocate

receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard

Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a

flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc...

Prevention, Other prevention, Other measure to enhance flood risk prevention (may include, flood risk

modelling and assessment, flood vulnerability assessment, maintenance programmes or policies etc...)

Protection

Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the flow

into natural or artificial drainage systems, such as overland flow interceptors and / or storage,

enhancement of infiltration, etc and including in-channel, floodplain works and the reforestation of banks,

that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water.

Protection, Water flow regulation, Measures involving physical interventions to regulate flows, such as

the construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line storage

areas or development of existing flow regulation rules), and which have a significant impact on the

hydrological regime.

Protection, Channel, Coastal and Floodplain Works, Measures involving physical interventions in

freshwater channels, mountain streams, estuaries, coastal waters and flood-prone areas of land, such as the

construction, modification or removal of structures or the alteration of channels, sediment dynamics

management, dykes, etc.

Protection, Surface Water Management, Measures involving physical interventions to reduce surface

water flooding, typically, but not exclusively, in an urban environment, such as enhancing artificial

drainage capacities or though sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).

Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to enhance protection against flooding, which may include

flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies

Preparedness

Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or

warning system

Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish or

enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning

Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public awareness

or preparedness for flood events

Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to establish or enhance preparedness for flood events to

reduce adverse consequences

Recovery & Review

Recovery and Review (Planning for the recovery and review phase is in principle part of preparedness),

Individual and societal recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (buildings, infrastructure, etc), Health

and mental health supporting actions, incl. managing stress Disaster financial assistance (grants, tax), incl.

disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, Temporary or permanent relocation , Other

Recovery and Review, Environmental recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (with several sub-

topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous materials containers)

Recovery and Review, Other, Other recovery and review Lessons learnt from flood events Insurance

policies

Other

M11

M21

M22

M23

M24

M31

M32

M33

M34

M35

M41

M42

M43

M44

M51

M52

M53

M61

174

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Annex 4 Map of iRBD for which an assessment was carried out

National and International

River Basin Districts

EU iRBDs

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

Category 4

Not reviewed

Finnmark

Teno

Troms

Torne River

Tornionjoki Kemijoki

Nordland

Bothnian Bay

NO1105

FIVHA7

FIVHA5

SE1

FIVHA4

Non EU iRBDs

Not Reviewed

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

Category 4

National RBD

Neagh Bann

North Western

UK01

SE4

Troendelag Bothnian Sea

SE2

Vuoksi

FIVHA1

FIVHA3

FIVHA2

Glomma

NO5101

NO5102

SE3

EE1

East

EE2

Estonia

Skagerrak and Kattegat

SE5

Gauja

Daugava

Venta

Lielupe

LT1100

UK02

UK03

Shannon

IESE

IESW

IEEA

UK04

Vidaa-Krusaa

Eider

Schlei/Trave Ucker

UK05

NLRN

Nemunas

Pregolya

PL2000

UK10

UK09

Ems

Weser

DE4000

DE5000

UK06

UK08

Odra

PL6000

Vistula

Scheldt

FRH

Elbe

CZ_5000

Sambre

Seine

Meuse

DE2000

CZ_1000

Rhine

FRC

DE1000

SK40000

AT1000

FRG

CH10

CH LI

CH50

FRF

ES014

ES018

FRD

ITB

Adour-Garonne Rhone

Minho Eastern Cantabrian

Douro

ES020

ES030

ES091

Danube

Adige

Eastern Alps

ITA

HU1000

RO1000

ITC

BG1000

BG2000

BG3000

PTRH3

ITE

FRE

Ebro

PTRH4

ES100

West

ITF

East Aegean

Aegean

GR11

ES040

ES080

ITG

PTRH5

Tagus

Guadiana

ES050

Western Macedonia

Central Macedonia

Epirus

GR08

GR04

ES070

ES060

ITH

335

670

GR13

1,340 km

175

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Annex 5 Overview of international coordinating mechanisms

Category

Danube

Rhine

Category 1

Meuse

Elbe

Odra

Scheldt (Escaut)

Duero/Douro

Guadiana

Miño/Minho

Tagus (Tajo/Tejo)

iRBD

International Coordinating Body/

International Coordinating

Mechanism

International Commission for the

Protection of the Danube River

(ICPDR)

International Commission for the

Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)

International Meuse Commission

(IMC)

International Commission for the

Protection of the Elbe (ICPER)

International Commission for the

Protection of the Odra (ICPO)

Internatioal Scheldt Commission

(ISC)

Albufeira Convention

Means of coordination

Expert Group ‘Flood

Protection’ (FP EG)

Working Group ‘Flood’

Working Group

‘Flood

management’

Working Group ‘Flood

management’

Working Group ‘Flood

management’

Working Group ‘PA7b’

Infrastructure and Flood

Security Working Group

Infrastructure and Flood

Security Working Group

Infrastructure and Flood

Security Working Group

Working Groups on

Hydrological

Information, Planning

and Information

Exchange

No permanent working

group

Ukrainian-Polish

Working Group on flood

control regulations and

drainage

Isonzo/Soča/Soca

Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru

Category 2

Ems

Italian-Slovenian Commission for the

hydroeconomy

Agreement between the Government

of Ukraine and the Government of

Poland on Cooperation in the Field of

Water Management in Frontier

Waters (signed in 1996). This

agreement established the Ukrainian-

Polish Commission.

Agreement between the Government

of the Republic of Moldova and the

Government of Ukraine on the joint

management and protection of the

cross-border waters in 1994.

Managed through close cooperation

between the German Federal States of

Lower Saxony and North Rhine-

Westphalia and the Netherlands as

well as with the German Federal

Government

No international coordinating body

but supporting document on

international coordination developed

in addition to the three national

FRMPs (DE, NL)

Two working groups: a)

an international

coordination group and

b) an international

governance group which

also deals with flood

management

176

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Tornio/Torne

Teno/Tana,

Nataamo/Neiden,

Pasvloa/Paatsjoki/Pasvik

Garonne/

Cantabrico Oriental

Garonne/Ebro

Vistula

Coordinated by the Swedish Civil

Contingencies Agency, the Ministry

of Agriculture and Forestry in Finland

and the Finnish-Swedish Border

Commission

Finland-Sweden Intergovernmental

Agreement of 2010 with the objective

to inter alia prevent flood and

environmental accidents for the Torne

River.

Coordinated by the Finnish-

Norwegian Transboundary Water

Commission and the Finnish-Russian

Transboundary Commission.

Agreement of Toulouse (established

between Spain and France in

February 2006)

FRMP (ES017) includes a specific

annex on international cooperation,

which details all issues regarding this

topic

Agreement of Toulouse (established

between Spain and France in

February 2006) -under this

convention it was agreed to make

independent plans, and to hold

technical meetings for coordination,

but no further details on these

meetings are provided

Joint Commission of the Lanós Lake

and the Upper Garonne Joint

Commission are also in place, but no

activities are reported. Spanish FRMP

(ES091) refers to technical meetings,

but no further details are given

Convention on the Protection and Use

of Transboundary Watercourses and

International Lakes (17 February

2000)

Agreement between Poland and

Slovakia on Water Management in

Border Countries (14 May 1997)

Agreement between Poland and the

Ukraine on cooperation in the field of

water management in border waters

(10 October 1996)

Agreement between Poland and

Belarus on cooperation in the field of

environmental protection (20 May

1992)

Agreement between Poland and

Lithuania on cooperation in the field

of border water use and protection (7

June 2005)

International cooperation in the area

of particular water regions is carried

out under the statutory tasks and

Non-permanent working

groups are in place. The

Swedish Finnish River

Commission can arrange

meetings and working

facilities for the working

groups.

No working group

Category 3

Group R - for flood

prevention measures,

regulation of border

watercourses, water

supply, land

improvement, planning

and hydrogeology;

HyP Group - for

hydrology and flood

protection, dealing

among others among

other exchanges and

control of

hydrometeorological

information, performing

flow measurements on

boundary profiles;

Ukrainian-Polish

Working Group on flood

control regulations and

drainage

177

kom (2019) 0095 - Ingen titel

Pregolya

Vidaa/Wiedau

Krusaa/Krusau

concentrates on cooperation in border

waters (Slovakia, Ukraine, Lithuania,

Belarus) and other cooperation in the

field of water management. This

cooperation is also based on the

arrangements for mutual cooperation

in the implementation of the EU

water policy. For the Vistula River

Basin, information exchange with

Slovakia takes place within the

framework of the Polish-Slovak

Border Water Commission and the

Polish-Ukrainian Border Water

Commission. At present negotiations

are underway on the draft agreement

between Poland and Belarus on

cooperation in the field of water

management in border waters.

International cooperation is

coordinated by the National Water

Management Board in Poland and

based on two formal international

agreements: one with Lithuania (7

June 2005) and one with Russia (first

signed 17 July 1964 under the USSR

and automatically renewed every 5

years).

National FRMPs (LT, PL) exist, but

no iFRMP was prepared.

Signed bilateral joint declaration on

cooperation between Denmark and

Schleswig Holstein

Signed bilateral joint declaration on

cooperation between Denmark and

Schleswig Holstein

No working group

178