EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 33 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT International Cooperation under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) - Factsheets for International River Basins 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) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 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}



Table of Contents Acronyms Introduction Types of international coordination 1 International units of management – Category 1 Basins 1.1 Danube River Basin 1.1.1 Contextual information 1.1.2 Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB 1.1.3 Consultation and publication of the iFRMP 1.1.4 Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP 1.1.5 Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP 1.1.6 Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk 1.1.7 Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 1.1.8 Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Danube 1.1.9 Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Danube RB 1.1.10 Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 1.2 Rhine River Basin 1.2.1 Contextual information 1.2.2 Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB

1.2.3 Consultation and publication of the iFRMP 1.2.4 Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP 1.2.5 Flood Hazard and Flood Risk maps in the iFRMP 1.2.6 Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk 1.2.7 Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 1.2.8 Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Rhine 1.2.9 Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Rhine RB 1.2.10 Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 1.3 Meuse River Basin 1.3.1 Contextual information 1.3.2 Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB 1.3.3 Consultation and publication of the Meuse iFRMP 1.3.4 Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Meuse 1.3.5 Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Meuse 1.3.6 Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk 1.3.7 Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 1.3.8 Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Meuse 1.3.9 Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Meuse RB 1.3.10 Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 1.4 Elbe River Basin

1.4.1 Contextual information 1.4.2 Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB 1.4.3 Consultation and publication of the Elbe iFRMP 1.4.4 Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Elbe 1.4.5 Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Elbe 1.4.6 Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk 1.4.7 Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 1.4.8 Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Elbe 1.4.9 Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Elbe RB 1.4.10 Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 1.5 Odra River Basin 1.5.1 Contextual information 1.5.2 Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB 1.5.3 Consultation and publication of the Odra iFRMP 1.5.4 Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Odra 1.5.5 Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Odra 1.5.6 Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk 1.5.7 Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 1.5.8 Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Odra 1.5.9 Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Odra RB

1.5.10 Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 1.6 Scheldt (Escaut) River Basin 1.6.1 Contextual information 1.6.2 Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB 1.6.3 Consultation and publication of the Scheldt iFRMP 1.6.4 Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Scheldt 1.6.5 Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Scheldt 1.6.6 Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk 1.6.7 Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 1.6.8 Consideration of climate change in the Scheldt iFRMP 1.6.9 Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Scheld RB 1.6.10 Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 2 International units of management – Category 2 Basins 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 Contextual information 2.1.2 Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RBs 2.1.3 Coordinated consultation of FRMPs in transboundary RBs 2.1.4 Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in transboundary RBs 2.1.5 Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in transboundary RBs 2.1.6 Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk in transboundary RBs

2.1.7 Planning and implementation of measures in transboundary RBs 2.1.8 Consideration of climate change in transboundary RBs 2.1.9 Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 3 International units of management – Category 3 Basins 3.1.1 Introduction 3.1.2 Contextual information 3.1.3 Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RBs 3.1.4 Coordinated consultation of FRMPs in transboundary RBs 3.1.5 Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in transboundary RBs 3.1.6 Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in transboundary RBs 3.1.7 Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk in transboundary RBs 3.1.8 Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 3.1.9 Consideration of climate change in transboundary RBs 3.1.10 Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 4 International units of management – Category 4 Basins 4.1.1 Introduction 4.1.2 Contextual information 4.1.3 Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB 4.1.4 Coordinated consultation of FRMPs in transboundary RBs 4.1.5 Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in transboundary RBs

4.1.6 Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in transboundary RBs 4.1.7 Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk 4.1.8 Planning and implementation measures with transboundary effect 4.1.9 Consideration of climate change in transboundary RBs 4.2 Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles



Acronyms APSFR Area of Potential Significant Flood Risk CBA Cost-benefit analysis EU European Union FD Floods Directive (Directive 2007/60/EC) FHRM Flood Hazard and Risk Map FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan iFRMP international Flood Risk Management Plan iRBD international River Basin District iRBMP international River Basin Management Plan iUoM international Unit of Management PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment RB River Basin RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe



Introduction 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 Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Floods Directive (FD). Next to the assessment of the first Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) under the FD, a desk-based review of this cross-border cooperation was carried out on the basis of (1) the transboundary river basins (RBs) 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 review are therefore constrained by the choice of the aspects reviewed and by the amount of information contained in the reviewed documents. The aim of the European Union (EU) Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks (Directive 2007/60/EC; the FD), which entered into force on 26 November 2007 is, to reduce the adverse consequences of floods on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activities (Art. 1). In terms of cross-border co-operation, Member States shall coordinate their flood risk management practices 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 international River Basin District (iRBD)/international Unit of Management (iUoM) level. The European Commission is required to report to the European Parliament and Council in 2018 on progress made by Member States with implementing the Directive. The present document is part of this reporting and comprises a series of fact sheets for the international RB which are describing the application of the Directive at iRBD or iUoM level. It is based on the information reported by Member States to the Water Information System for Europe (WISE), previous national and EU overview reports on Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRA) and Flood Hazard & Risk Maps (FHRM) published by the European Commission and the national and international Flood Risk management Plans (FRMP and iFRMPs). 27 RBs were chosen for the assessment (see Table 2 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 and four iRBDs shared between Sweden-Norway were not reviewed. 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 assessment: a) 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;

b) 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; d) 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 1 . Table 1:Different types of international co-ordination in relation to the FD Category Formal international agreement International coordinating body IFRMP produced 1 Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes Yes No 3 Yes No No 4 No No No 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. In the map below the basins assessed are shown. Figure 1:Map of iRBD for which a review was done Table 2:List of selected iRBDs/iUoM for which an assessment was done Category International RBs Riparian EU Member States/Non-EU countries Category 1 Danube 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 Elbe Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland Rhine Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands Non-EU countries: Switzerland, Liechtenstein Meuse Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands Odra the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland Scheldt Belgium, France, The Netherlands Category 2 Duero/Douro Spain, Portugal Guadiana Spain, Portugal Miño/Minho Spain, Portugal Tagus (Tajo/Tejo) Spain, Portugal Isonzo/Soca Italy, Slovenia Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru Poland Non-EU countries: Moldova, Ukraine Ems Germany, The Netherlands Tornio/Torne Finland, Sweden Teno/Tana Finland Non-EU countries: Norway , Russia Category 3 Garonne/ (Cantabrico Oriental) France, Spain Garonne/ (Ebro) France, Spain Vistula Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania Non-EU countries: Ukraine, Belarus Pregolya Poland, Lithuania Non-EU countries: Russia Torne Bothanian Bay Finland, Sweden Non-EU countries: Norway Vidaa/Wiedau Denmark, Germany Krusaa/Krusau Denmark, Germany Category 4 Po Italy, France Non-EU countries: Switzerland Gauja/Koiva Estonia, Latvia East Estonia Estonia Non-EU countries: Russia Kemijoki\ Finland Non-EU countries: Norway, Russia Teno/Tana Finland Non-EU countries: Norway, Russia Nemunas/Nieman/Neman/Nyoman Lithuania, Poland Non-EU countries: Russia, Belarus Schlei Trave Germany, Denmark Eider Germany, Denmark Eastern Alps (Adige) Italy Non-EU countries: Switzerland 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. Table 3:List of iRBDs/iUoM for which an assessment was not carried out International RB Riparian EU Member States/Non-EU countries Shannon/North Eastern The United Kingdom, Ireland Neagh Bann The United Kingdom, Ireland North Western The United Kingdom, Ireland Drin Greece Non-EU countries: Albania, FYROM Aoos/Vjosa Greece Non-EU countries: Albania Nordland Sweden Non-EU countries: Norway Troendelag Sweden Non-EU countries: Norway Bothanin Bay Sweden Non-EU countries: Norway Skagerrak and Kattegat Sweden Non-EU countries: Norway Lielupe Lithuania, Latvia Venta Lithuania, Latvia Daugava Lithuania, Latvia Non-EU countries: Russia, Belarus Mesta-Nestos Bulgaria, Greece Struma-Strymonas Bulgaria, Greece Central Macedonia Greece Non-EU countries: FYROM, Serbia



1International units of management – Category 1 Basins

1.1Danube River Basin 1.1.1Contextual information The Danube RB is shared by the riparian countries of Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania, with shares in non-EU countries principally in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Moldova and the Ukraine. The Danube is considered a Category 1 RB, as an international commission has been set up – The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) – to enable cooperation between the riparian countries – and an iFRMP exists. Within the Danube catchment an international commission at the sub- catchment level exists: The International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC) has been established for purpose of the implementation of the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin. One of the goals of the Framework Agreement is to undertake measures to prevent or limit hazards, such as floods. The Sava Commission is currently in the process of drafting an iFRMP. 1.1.2Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB The ICPDR has produced an iFRMP together with Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova and Ukraine. Within the Commission, the Expert Group ‘Flood Protection’ (FP EG) is tasked with supporting the implementation of the FD. Although there is no requirement in the FD for riparian Member States to co-fund projects, considering the transboundary context, it is not clear if financial resources for joint cooperation (other than the functioning of the ICPDR) have been made available by the participating states. However, the iFRMP indicates which financial instruments are planned to be used (or already being used) for joint cooperation. For example, the EUSDRsupports the measures foreseen in the iFRMP and provides a platform for developing projects on flood risk management, especially flood mitigation. The iFRMP states that Article 7(4), 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 (i.e., measures like natural water retention, warning systems, reduction of risk from contaminated sites in floodplain areas, exchange of information). 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. 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 synergies exists. Some examples of win-win measures are stated in the iFRMP. 1.1.3Consultation and publication of the iFRMP Under public participation, the ICPDR pursues a range of activities. 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 Day’ or the teacher’s kit ‘Danube Box’) and 3) public consultation activities directly linked to the development of the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and FRMP. To accompany the development of the iFRMP, public consultation was done in two main stages, in which comments from the public were collected: 1) on a timetable and work programme including public consultation measures and 2) on the draft FRMP. Public consultation for both of these steps spun a period of at least six months, in which the opportunity to provide comments was actively promoted. The timetable and work programme were published for comments from 22 December 2012 to 22 June 2013; the draft iFRMP entered the public consultation phase on 22 December 2014 and concluded 22 July 2015. The opportunity to participate in each of these steps was promoted through the ICPDR network of contracting parties and observers, through news items on the ICPDR website icpdr.org, the magazine Danube Watch, targeted advertisements in specialist media such as Aquapress and through a video clip that called stakeholders to get active in the consultation process. The video was used in national channels via the ICPDR network and can be found at icpdr.org/main/get-active. 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. These can be divided into four groups and corresponding activities, which are described in more detail below. Raw data and reports on each of these activities was published online at http://icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/consultation-2015 . The opportunity to comment on the draft plan in writing was primarily advertised to organised stakeholders with the technical capacity and expertise, such as ICPDR observers. Until 22 July 2015, fourteen written comments by a range of organisations or individuals representing an organisation were provided jointly for the iFRMP and the international RBMP’s (iRBMP) update for 2015. Each of these comments, some of which are extensive documents relating to several different elements in the draft Plans, were published online and processed for the final report. In addition, a stakeholder consultation workshop ‘Voice of the Danube’ was held in Zagreb on 2 and 3 July 2015. In order to expand the target groups of public consultation beyond expert stakeholders, a simple and easily accessible online questionnaire was developed and published via ICPDR.org to target the interested, but not informed public. In parallel, a questionnaire related to the iRBMP’s update for 2015 was also published. In total, 95 people filled in the questionnaire for the iFRMP, and a further 90 people filled in the one for the iRBMP. To include the general public that would not be targeted by the other consultation measures, a social media campaign was implemented in parallel to the preparation for the stakeholder consultation workshop. 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 iFRMP in December 2015. This final public consultation report gives an overview on the measures pursued and the original sources for the comments received. Furthermore, a table breaks down the individual requests for changes to the draft management plan together with information on the chapter it relates to, which organisation or individual raised it and how it was dealt with – if it resulted in changes, information is given on which; if it was rejected, a reason is given why. The report was sent to all organisations and individuals that participated in the public consultation activities and can be found on icpdr.org. 1.1.4Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP

In the iFRMP it is stated that the risk assessment has been coordinated at the international level. An updated version of the Area of Potential Significant Flood Risk (APSFR) map published in the PFRA report in 2011 was developed. The design and background data of the map follows the approach of the ICPDR for WFD reporting on level “A”, which is the highest (least detailed) level, that of the overall international RB district. Transboundary APSFRs were defined by the FP EG as any area (in the transboundary reach of the Danube river or one of its tributaries) that has been assigned as a 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 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 international RB district. In the iFRMP, there is no information on which sources of flooding have been considered. On the basis of the APSFRs, different risk maps for the entire Danube RB have been developed by the ICPDR and are explained in detail in the following section. 1.1.5Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP The Danube riparian countries did not use the same probabilities of flooding for developing their national FHRMs. For low probability flooding, return periods between 100 and 1 000 years were used. For medium probability flooding all countries with the exception of Ukraine and Moldova, used a return period of 100 years. For high probabilities, no scenario was agreed at ICPDR level, but risk maps are given. The probabilities used for low and medium probability by each country are listed in the following table: Table 10:Return periods used for FHRMs in the Danube Country Code Medium probability Low probability Germany HQ100 HQ1 000/1,5xHQ100 Austria HQ100 HQ300 the Czech Republic HQ100 HQ500 Slovakia HQ100 HQ1 000/extremely dangerous flood Hungary HQ100 HQ1 000 Croatia HQ100 HQ1 000 with no flood protection facility, protected systems considering dike failure Slovenia HQ100 HQ500 Serbia HQ100 HQ1 000 Bosnia and Herzegovina HQ100 HQ500 Bulgaria HQ100 HQ1 000 Romania HQ100 HQ1 000 Ukraine HQ10-20 HQ100-200 Moldova HQ10-20 HQ100 The following risk maps for the entire Danube RB are available: a)The map on “risk and population” shows the population potentially affected by floods with low, medium and high probability in the parts of the countries belonging to the Danube RB. In the inundation areas addressed, there are at least 936 000 people affected by floods with 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. b)The maps on “risk and economic activity” display the share of inundated area by class of economic activity (according to Corine Land Cover) for low, medium and high probability floods. The agricultural areas have the major share among the different types of economic activities followed by the category ‘others’, which combines a number of various activities. Approximately 29 000 km2 of agricultural areas are potentially affected by low probability floods in the Danube RB. 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 km2). c)The map on “risk and installations with the potential to cause pollution” shows the number of IPPC and Seveso installations affected by floods with low, medium and high probability in the parts of the countries belonging to the Danube RB. Floods with high probability affect 146 installations, floods with medium probability affect 337 installations and floods with low probability affect 617 installations. d)There are two maps on “risk and WFD protected areas”. One map is showing Natura 2000 protected areas superimposed by the flood hazard areas (for the low probability floods scenario). Only the overlapping flood hazard areas are displayed. The second map displays the total number of affected areas designated for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption under WFD’s Article 7, and of the affected bodies of water designated as recreational waters, including areas designated as bathing waters under Directive 2006/7/EC by floods with low, medium and high probability. Floods with high probability affect 241 drinking water and recreational water areas, floods with medium probability affect 413 drinking water and recreational water areas and floods with low probability affect 796 drinking water and recreational water areas in the Danube RB. No map is provided for cultural heritage at risk of flooding. No data were provided by Ukraine, Moldova and Montenegro on FHRMs. 1.1.6Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk The ICPDR agreed upon the following objectives of the flood risk management for the Danube RB: ·Avoidance of new risks ·Reduction of existing risks ·Strengthening resilience

·Raising awareness ·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 aim to address all aspects of flood risk management focusing on prevention, protection, preparedness, including flood forecasts and early warning systems. The objectives are not further quantified and they are in line with the ones established nationally by the Member States being members of the ICPDR. However, they are described on a very general level and therefore leave room for accommodating specificities on Member States level. 1.1.7Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect There are common principles for defining measures. Annex 2 of the iFRMP lists transboundary projects supporting the iFRMP. Joint measures/projects are: ·Danube Sediment Project: One of the main goals of the proposed project is to establish for the first time a Danube River Basin sediment budget, identify reaches with surplus and deficit, river bed aggradation and degradation, sediment-related problems in flood risk management, drinking water production, hydropower generation, navigation, water quality and ecology, as well as gain knowledge and better understanding of sediment transport and morpho-dynamic processes in the Danube River (M61). ·Danube Floodplain Project: The overall objective of the proposed project is to reduce the flood risk through floodplain restoration along the Danube and other DRB rivers (M31). ·DANICE project: The DANube River Basin ICE focusses on conveyance investigation and icy flood management (M61). ·The LAREDAR project focuses on hazard and risk mapping, risk management planning of the LAkes and REservoirs in the Danube (M41). ·The Coca-Cola Company and WWF are working in a seven-year partnership to restore vital wetlands and floodplains along the River Danube and its tributaries. The project aims to restore 53 km² of wetland habitat in the Danube region by 2020. The ICPDR is observer in the Steering Group of the partnership (M31). ·Improvement of flood forecasting (M41). ·Information exchange on the operation of hydraulic structures. Flood forecasting and flood management need real time information and data on the operation of flow control structures. Pre-emptying the reservoirs of holding back water to fill up the reservoirs influence the precision of the flood forecasting and can endanger the flood management of the downstream stretches (M43). ·Coordination in operative flood management is increasingly important with more floods affecting multiple countries and exceeding peak historical levels in the last years (M24). ·Development of elements of FRMP for trans-boundary sub-units of common interest (M24). ·Exchange of flood protection techniques, technologies and experiences (M24). ·Develop an education/training network (M43). ·Enhance coordination of operative flood protection methods and equipment (M24). ·Analysis of catchment reaction on different precipitation scenarios in the upper Danube including identification of retention sites (M61). ·ProDaM – Protect Danube and Morava: The project objective is to optimize the joint flood management in the border area of the Danube and Morava between Austria and the Slovak Republic (M24).

·DAMWARM project (Drava And Mura WAter and Risk Management) Project focuses on better and more efficient Drava and Mura River Basin and flood (and other) risk management (M24). ·FRISCO1: Common Slovenian and Croatian transboundary flood risk management project. The project addresses the flood risk at all of the Slovenian-Croatian borderline rivers (Kolpa/Kupa, Bregana, Sotla/Sutla, Drava, Mura and Dragonja rivers) (M24). Several projects or project proposals/ideas presented as transboundary projects were developed by the ICPDR and/or EUSDR PA5 and they shall: ·reflect the objectives and priorities set in iFRMP, ·have a transboundary character, ·help to implement the measures listed in Annex 2 of the iFRMP. There is no ranking or prioritization of these projects, as they are all considered as supportive to the implementation of the iFRMP. The iFRMP presents only the strategic level measures for the RB. 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 nature based solutions (natural water retention and giving more space to rivers) but the importance of the structural measures was also recognized. A river basin wide cost-benefit analysis was not used in the prioritisation and planning of measures with a transboundary effect. A summary of existing national approaches to the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is provided. As a result, it is clear that some Danube countries are using some sort of CBA (Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Romania, Bulgaria), others not. The measures listed above relate to the main common and coordinated measures: Table 11:Joint coordinated measures 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...) M31 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 M41 Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or warning system M43 Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public awareness or preparedness for flood events M61 Other The measures under the FD were coordinated with those under the WFD by the ICPDR which is responsible for supporting the implementation of both Directives. To produce PFRAs, 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. There is no information regarding timing of the implementation of measures within the iFRMP. Reporting on the Danube FRMP implementation progress will be done via national representatives to the ICPDR FP EG during the second cycle. 1.1.8Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Danube Taking climate change into account is, according to FD’s Art 14(4), a requirement for the reviews of the second cycle of the FD. The iFRMP of the Danube contains a specific chapter on climate change. It focuses on what regional scenarios have been developed and the effects on measures. The iFRMP lists measures by several countries, where the effects of climate change were taken into account (e.g. for Romania: Adapting construction, infrastructure and existing defence structures in terms of climate change). It is not clear whether the potential effects of climate change on the risk of flooding have been taken into account when setting objectives. It is stated that adapting flood risk management to climate change issues has to be included in the next cycle of FRMPs. Similarly, climate check of flood risk measures will be performed in the future reviews of the iFRMP. Whereas the chapter on establishing objectives does not mention climate change, the dedicated chapter on climate change focuses on what regional scenarios have been developed and the effects on measures. However, a link to the Danube Climate Adaptation Study developed in 2012 is established. 1.1.9Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Danube RB

The most outstanding good practice examples of the activities of the ICPDR regarding the coordination of the FD implementation at the international level is the ICPDR’s large range of public participation activities discussed earlier. One exemplary feature is that the comments on the draft iFRMP were all published online. Further, various risk maps for the entire Danube River Basin were developed for the iFMRP, i.e. maps on risk and population, economic activity, installations with the potential to cause pollution and WFD protected areas. This uniform representation of flood risk for the Danube is an excellent instrument for raising public awareness, but also for focusing the attention of risk management planners in all riparian countries on their common goal. 1.1.10Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles In preparing for the second cycle of the FD, the following recommendations can be made to further improve cooperation: ·The return periods to assess low probability flood risk are not the same in the Danube Basin. Such a streamlining should be envisaged where possible as it could facilitate common risk assessments. ·Information on the coordination mechanism for the risk assessment should be provided as this might be an inspiring example for other basins. ·The sources for flooding that have been considered in the definition of the transboundary APSFR should be specified in the iFRMP. ·Information from Ukraine, Moldova and Montenegro should be included in the FHRM as soon as made available. ·Information on the underlying assumptions/factors for producing the FHRMs should be provided. ·Co-financing of measures should be considered to strengthen cross-border cooperation but also to ensure that the measures taken are following an overarching concept to reduce the risks. ·Any new information on CBA should be added if available to support the prioritisation and planning of measures with a transboundary effect. ·Climate change should be considered in the setting of objectives and in the prioritisation of measures. ·The iFRMP does not make fully clear whether joint implementation of measures will take place and how this is organised. It is recommended to make this clearer in the second Plan. 1.2Rhine River Basin 1.2.1Contextual information The Rhine RB is shared primarily by Germany, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, with smaller shares found in Austria, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium and Liechtenstein. The Rhine is considered a Category 1 RB, as an international RB commission has been set up – The International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) – to enable cooperation between the different EU Member States and non-EU countries and an iFRMP exists. Article 13 of the FD was applied in parts of the basin for PFRA, namely in Germany (Rhineland-Palatinate (Article 13(1)(a) all parts of the Rhine), Saarland (Article 13(1)(a) all parts of the Rhine), Bavaria (Article 13(1)(a) for the part Alpine Rhine – Lake Constance and Article 13(1)(a) as well as Article 13(3) for the part Main) and Hessen (Article 13(1)(b) for A-level waters), in the Netherlands (13(1)(b)), in Belgium (Wallonia) (13(1)(a) and 13(2)), in Luxemburg (13(1)(a)) and in Liechtenstein (13(2)). In other Member States (France and Austria) and German states (Lower Saxony, North-Rhine-Westphalia, Baden-Württemberg and Thuringia) Article 4 was applied in the entire territory. 1.2.2Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB The International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) produced an iFRMP together with the EU Member States Italy, Austria, France, Germany, Luxemburg, Belgium, the Netherlands, and non-EU countries Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Within the ICPR, the common working group ‘Floods’ is tasked with supporting the implementation of the FD.

The iFRMP for the Rhine RB consists of an international part and a national part (see the iFRMP, Annex 4 with links to the national parts). Although not a requirement of the FD, it is not clear if financial resources for joint cooperation (other than the functioning of the ICPR) have been made available by the participating states. The iFRMP does not provide any information whether there is financing for joint activities and projects. The iFRMP states that based on the principle of solidarity (Article 7(4)), the states should avoid taking measures which due to their extent and their impacts considerably increase the flood risk in other countries along the river upstream or downstream as long as these measures are not coordinated between the Member States concerned and a common solution has been found. Practical examples for this coordination are given in Chapter 4.4 of the iFRMP where Figure 7 shows the calculated transboundary impact on the reduction of flood peaks due to concrete measures lowering the water level. The development of the iFRMP was done in consultation with the iRBMP. The iFRMP states that as far as measures in the Rhine RB 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 state of water bodies will be reduced to a minimum. Chapters 4.1 and 4.4 as well as Annexes 8 and 9 of the iFRMP show possible synergies between measures of the FD and measures of the WFD. 1.2.3Consultation and publication of the iFRMP The draft of the first iFRMP for the Rhine RB (part A) was published on the ICPR website on 22 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 Member States of the Rhine catchment. Detailed information about the public consultation process is mentioned in Chapter 6 of the iFRMP. ICPR Observers such as NGOs were involved from the start through their participation in the working groups. Further, during the six months of the iFRMP online consultation period, the ICPR received statements and requests for adaptation of the draft from some NGOs (observers to the ICPR) and other stakeholders. These requests have been discussed in detail within the working group Floods, as the ICPR body in charge, and were largely integrated into the iFRMP . 1.2.4Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP The PFRA was coordinated on the international level. The iFRMP provides a map of APSFRs for the whole Rhine RB but does not draw overall conclusions. In the iFRMP reference is made to a special report on the identification of APSFRs within the whole basin which includes more details and conclusions. There is no information on which sources of flooding were considered. 1.2.5Flood Hazard and Flood Risk maps in the iFRMP The iFRMP presents an overview map with river stretches or areas for which the Member States have drafted FHRMs. Further, there is a reference to a specific report on the drafting of FHRMs including the internationally agreed discharge values for the three flood scenarios (low, medium and high probability) for the main stream of the Rhine used for the national maps. However, these values are not specified in the Plan but in the separate report. The original ICPR Rhine Atlas of 2001 was updated based on the national FHRMs. Taking into account the internationally agreed discharge values for the three flood scenarios, the Interactive Rhine Atlas 2015 presents updated maps of flood hazard and flood risk. No statistics on people potentially affected by the different flood scenarios, risk to economic activity, risk to environment or risk to cultural heritage were published in the iFRMP. However, some general information can be found in chapter 1.2 of the iFRMP and the Rhine Atlas of 2015 maps the potential adverse consequences and the risk related to human health, environment, cultural heritage and economic activities. Further, detailed information can be found in the national reports. 1.2.6Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk A number of common principles and joint objectives have been established for the management of flood risk at the international level. Links with the Action Plan on Floods (1998) of the ICPR are made. The iFRMP details the different objectives as follows: ·avoid new, unacceptable risks; ·reduce existing risks to an acceptable level; ·reduce adverse consequences during a flood event; ·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 review shows that the general targets of flood risk management on the national and international level are the same in the whole basin.

Potential effects of climate change on the risk of flooding and on flood risk management are briefly described in the iFRMP. However, they were not directly taken into account when setting objectives. 1.2.7Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect The Member States in the Rhine RB 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/locally; ·For regional measures with transboundary effects there will first be an exchange of information at a bilateral level or within RB 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 bullet point 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 district. 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. In the iFRMP it is stated that 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. It remains unclear whether or how other types of measures are affected by this approach. Joint principles for prioritising measures on an international level are mentioned in Chapter 3.1. The iFRMP plan lists common objectives and a set of concrete joint measures that seem to be 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. As mentioned previously, the iFRMP states 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. The main common and coordinated measures are: Table 12:Joint coordinated measures M21 Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation M23 Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a 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, e.g. flood vulnerability assessment, maintenance programmes or policies etc...) M31 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 M32 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 M33 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. M34 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) M35 Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to enhance protection against flooding, which may include flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies M41 Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or warning system M42 Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish or enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning M43 Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public awareness or preparedness for flood events M61 Other It is stated in the iFRMP that with regards to the planned measures 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 state of water bodies will be reduced to a minimum. For some of the measures, in particular those measures aimed at lowering the flood water levels, a timeframe is given in the iFRMP with an implementation deadline until 2020 and post 2020 (2030). According to the requirements of the FD, the progress of the measures implemented will be reviewed every six years. This is the task of the expert group within the ICPR. The effect of all measures implemented at a national level will have to be identified on a national as well as on an international level for the whole RB. It is possible to evaluate and calculate the effect of all measures on the (reduction of) flood risk, including those reducing the water level with the help of existing methods and a GIS instrument, both developed by the ICPR . For existing measures, this calculation has already been made within the ICPR Action Plan on Floods. In the future, these calculations will be carried out regularly. 1.2.8Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Rhine Climate change has to be taken into account in more depth from the second cycle of the FD (Art.14(4)) and onwards. The iFRMP addresses the issue of climate change and has a specific sub-section on how climate change was taken into account in the flood risk assessment. Aspects covered are: ·Impacts of climate change for the Rhine catchment; ·Climate change effects on measures of flood risk management. The chapter on climate change first lists basin wide impacts from climate change based on a common assessment and the effects on measures of flood risk management. Also, following the instructions of the 15th Conference of Rhine Ministers, the ICPR has drafted a strategy to adapt to climate change. However, it remains unclear if these scenarios are used at the national level.

While climate change is not mentioned in establishing objectives in 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 in the Member States may be considered as no-regret and win-win measures. They also have a positive effect on changes of the water balance brought about by climate change. 1.2.9Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Rhine RB A number of good practice examples are available for the Rhine River Basin: ·The iFRMP states that internationally agreed discharge values for the three flood scenarios (low, medium and high probability) have been used (values are not directly specified in the plan but are mentioned in a specific report). ·Measures with transboundary effects are coordinated throughout the RB. ·National or regional agreements targeted at giving more room to the river and keeping floodplains free of all uses are enhanced by the ICPR. ·A coherent international Rhine Atlas 2015 from source to mouth (FHRMs of the iRBD ‘Rhine’) provides a uniform representation of flood risk for the Rhine and thus is an excellent instrument for raising public awareness, but also for focusing the attention of risk management planners in all riparian countries on their common goal. ·Based on existing methods and a GIS instrument the effect of all measures on the flood risk, including those reducing the water level, can be calculated. ·Climate change effects on flood risk management measures are taken into account. ·The iFRMP refers to regional transboundary plans and activities (part B, as opposed to part A which is the iFRMP) in different parts of the Rhine basin. Various bi- or multilateral procedures and activities have been implemented on this level, such as shared flood forecasting models and shared data flows. 1.2.10Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles In preparing for the second cycle of the FD, the following recommendations can be made to further improve cooperation: ·Co-financing of measures should be considered to strengthen cross-border cooperation but also to ensure that the measures taken are following an overarching concept to reduce the risks. ·More specific information should be provided on how the principle of solidarity (Article 7(4)) was implemented in practice. ·Public awareness raising activities of the iFRMP at the international level could be increased, for instance by integrating the international dimension into the national public awareness raising campaigns. ·Overall conclusions of the flood risk assessment should be presented for the entire iRBD. ·The iFRMP should specify the sources of flooding that have been considered in the definition of the transboundary APSFR. ·Statistics on people potentially affected by the different flood scenarios, risk to economic activity, risk to environment or risk to cultural heritage should be provided. ·Joint principles for prioritising measures on the international level should be set out, e.g. a methodology for CBA. ·Climate change should be considered in the setting of objectives and prioritisation of measures.

1.3Meuse River Basin 1.3.1Contextual information The Meuse RB is shared between France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The Meuse is considered a Category 1 RB, as an international river basin commission has been set up – The International Meuse Commission (IMC) – to enable cooperation between the five Member States and an international iFRMP exists. 1.3.2Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB The IMC has produced an iFRMP together with the Member States France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg. Within the commission, the common working group ‘Hydrology and Floods’ is tasked with supporting the international implementation of the FD. Although not a requirement of the FD, it is not clear if financial resources for joint cooperation (other than for the functioning of the IMC) have been made available by the participating countries, e.g. the iFRMP does not provide any information whether there is financing for joint activities and projects. The iFRMP states that Article 7(4) of the FD has been applied in the basin and that countries should avoid taking measures which due to their extent and their effect considerably increase the flood risk in other countries upstream or downstream in the same river catchment or sub-catchment as long as these measures are not coordinated between the Member States concerned and a common solution has been found. The iFRMP provides information on which measures need to be coordinated and/or information exchange is needed on the international level. The development of the iFRMP was done in consultation with the development of the iRBMP, which was coordinated by the IMC. So far, the subject of flooding has been included in the iRBMP prepared for the WFD. In addition, an extra document with the assessment of synergies between measures under both Directives was developed. 1.3.3Consultation and publication of the Meuse iFRMP The public consultation for the iFRMP was the responsibility of the five countries. The IMC did not take any actions related to public consultation. The plan was only published online and it remains unclear whether any awareness raising activities on the iFRMP took place at the country level for the iFRMP in paricular. 1.3.4Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Meuse The PFRA was coordinated on the international level. The iFRMP states that each of the bordering countries has developed its risk assessment, but for water bodies at the borders bilateral coordination has taken place. However, the iFRMP does not provide details regarding the content of the coordinated risk assessment. The iFRMP does not draw conclusions for the overall RB, still, maps of the entire catchment are presented. A map with APSFRs in the RB is given together with a table that shows the transboundary waters and gives some basic information on how the coordination between the countries was organised. The source is provided: Only fluvial flooding has been considered. 1.3.5Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Meuse The probabilities of flooding assumed for developing the flood hazard maps in the five riparian countries were different for low probability and high probability flooding. For low probability flooding return periods from a 100 up to a 1 000 year were assumed and for high probability flooding from 10 up to 30 years. For medium probability flooding the same return period of a 100 years was applied in all five Member States. No statistics for the different scenarios on people potentially affected, on risks to economic activity, risks to the environment and risks to cultural heritage were published in the iFRMP. This information is available in the national FRMPs. 1.3.6Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk For the management of flood risk at the international level, joint objectives 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; ·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 are: ·Effective international coordination of measures with transboundary effects; ·Improvement of the flood forecasting and warning; ·Improve flood risk knowledge. The measures are based on the operational objectives. The international objectives were derived based on the national objectives defined by the five Member States. The potential effects of climate change on the risk of flooding have been taken into account by the Member States when setting objectives. 1.3.7Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 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 on the international level was performed considering the mobilized human, technical and financial resources of all stakeholders and the expected benefits. The iFRMP does not mention whether a CBA was used in the prioritisation and planning of measures with a transboundary effect (although this is stated as a common objective). However, it mentions that CBA is done at the Member States level following different approaches and is mostly used in the case of construction measures. As mentioned previously, the iFRMP states 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. The iFRMP does not provide information how this is handled in practice. The main common and coordinated measures are: Table 13:Joint coordinated measures M41 Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or warning system M61 Other The iFRMP states that measures under the FD were coordinated with those under the WFD by the ICM. 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 whether they support WFD objectives, whether they are not relevant for the WFD objectives or whether they are in conflict with WFD objectives. There is no information regarding an agreed timing of the implementation of measures in the iFRMP; the implementation of measures is a responsibility of the national/regional authorities. The progress in the implementation of measures is monitored in a joint way based on a set of indicators which relate to each objective in the iFRMP: The indicators for objective 1 are:

·New national polices in FRM; ·Local measures, which have an impact on other countries within the basin; ·Results of coordination between riparian states and the IMC on measures which can have a negative impact on other countries. The indicators for objective 2 are: ·Results of the agreement on the exchange on hydrological data; ·Results from technical exchange; ·Other improvements on the forecasting of floods. The indicators for objective 3 are: ·Exchanged data by countries/regions; ·Common products and methods developed by the riparian states. The working group on ‘Flood Management’ in the ICM is responsible for monitoring and control. 1.3.8Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Meuse The summary of the IMC states that Member States have started to work on joint flow patterns based on national climate scenarios. Chapter 9 of the iFRMP provides information how the issue of climate change was considered in the setting of objectives or in the selection of measures. 1.3.9Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Meuse RB A good practice example of how to implement the FD at the international level from the Meuse RB is that the Member States have started to work on joint flow patterns. Further, the fact that there are indicators related to objectives can be considered as good practice. 1.3.10Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles In preparing for the second cycle of the FD, the following recommendations can be made to further improve cooperation: ·Co-financing of measures should be considered to strengthen cross-border cooperation but also to ensure that the measures taken are following an overarching concept to reduce the risks. ·More specific information should be provided on how the principle of solidarity was implemented in practice. ·Public awareness raising activities of the iFRMP at an international level could be increased, for instance by integrating the international dimension into the national public awareness raising campaigns.

·More information should be provided on how the PFRA was coordinated at the international level. ·Overall conclusions of the flood risk assessment should be presented for the entire RB. ·The return periods to assess high and low probability flood risk are not the same in the Meuse Basin. A converge should be envisaged wherever possible as it supports common risk assessments. ·Statistics on people potentially affected by the different flood scenarios, risk to economic activity, risk to environment, risk to cultural heritage should be provided. ·Climate change considerations should be introduced in the setting of objectives and prioritisation of measures. ·It should be considered to introduce a CBA for the planning and prioritising of measures with a transboundary effect. 1.4Elbe River Basin 1.4.1Contextual information The Elbe RB is shared primarily by the Czech Republic and Germany, with smaller shares found in Austria and Poland. The Elbe is considered a Category 1 RB as an international river basin commission has been set up – The International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe River (ICPER) – to enable cooperation between the four Member States and an iFRMP exists. 1.4.2Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB The Elbe RB is coordinated through the International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe River, which has produced an international iFRMP together with the Czech Republic, Germany, Austria and Poland. Within the ICPER, the common working group ‘Flood Protection’ is tasked with supporting the implementation of the FD. Although not a requirement of the FD, it is not clear if financial resources for joint cooperation (other than for the functioning of the International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe River) have been made available by the participating states and the iFRMP does not provide any information whether there is financing for joint activities and projects. The iFRMP mentions that measures are implemented on a national level. However, the information submitted by Germany to WISE, states that the iFRMP for the Elbe includes measures for Germany and the Czech Republic where cross-border solutions needed to be found. The iFRMP states that Article 7(4) has been applied in the basin and that the relationship between upstream and downstream countries plays an important role in flood risk management within the RB. The development of the iFRMP was done in consultation with the WFD. The measures in the iFRMPs were aligned with those under the WFD. The implementation of both Directives was coordinated, according to the ICPER, in particular regarding the improvement of efficiency, information exchange and synergies in achieving the environmental objectives of the WFD. 1.4.3Consultation and publication of the Elbe iFRMP The iFRMP provides an overview of the public consultation that took place. International workshops on risk assessment and risk and hazard maps and an international workshop on the management plans took place. An international Elbe Forum was held to inform the public on the current state of play of both the WFD and the FD. A summary of the results of the PFRA for the international basin was published in German and Czech and made available to the public. All documents, including the draft FRMPs and the risk maps have been published on the website of the Elbe Commission. There was also an international Elbe Forum on the iFRMP and the iRBMP. 1.4.4Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Elbe In the frame of the working group ‘Flood Protection’ of the ICPER, each Member State informed other delegates about their methods implementing the FD; all topics, aspects and steps of implementation with respect to the FD had been consulted amongst the delegates. However, as Austria and Poland did not identify APSFRs in their share of the Elbe RB, most of the information in the iFRMP refers to the German and Czech approaches. During the comparison of the methodologies for the risk assessment developed by Germany and the Czech Republic, the Elbe river commission found that comparable risk areas were identified by the two Member States. The iFRMP details the PFRA and its conclusions for each Member State separately, but does not draw conclusions for the overall RB. Information reported by Austria and Germany to WISE state that the risk assessment was coordinated through the working group under the Elbe Commission; however, the information does not clarify for which specific topics. The iFRMP states that there was a workshop held between the Czech Republic and Germany to discuss and compare methodologies for the PFRA. Although each Member State had developed different methodologies, the results were the same. While the methodologies themselves were not coordinated during their development, the results of the methodologies – i.e. the identification of APSFRs was compared to ensure that the different methodologies nevertheless resulted in the same identified risk areas. The same sources of flooding were considered in the common APSFRs 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 APSFR and that groundwater causing floods were not taken into account. In Germany, coastal and fluvial floods were taken into account. For both Austria and Poland general information regarding the methodology for identifying risk areas is presented in the iFRMP; these sections do not mention which sources of flooding were considered in Austria and Poland.

1.4.5Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Elbe The probabilities of flooding used for developing the flood hazard maps are mostly the same between the Czech Republic and Germany. For low probability flooding, the Czech Republic used a return period of 500 years and Germany a return period of 200 years for the main river and between 200-1 000 years for all other waters. For medium probability flooding, both the Czech Republic and Germany used a return period of 100 years. For high probability flooding, the Czech Republic used a return period of five and 20 years in all APSFR. On the other hand, Germany used a return period of 20 years for the main river and between 10-25 years for all other waters. Common risk maps were developed for the Elbe and were published on the Elbe Commission’s website. An interactive map with flood risk areas for the whole basin is available, from which access to the national maps is provided The following statistics on people potentially affected, risk to economic activity, risk to environment and risk to cultural heritage were published in the iFRMP: Table 14:Areas to be flooded in Km2 (Status 11.08.2015) Probability Fluvial flooding Seawater flooding CZ DE Total CZ DE Total high 695 2 424 3 119 0 41 41 medium 895 4 325 5 220 0 43 43 low 1 141 8 307 9 448 0 661 661 Table 15: Number of affected inhabitants (Status: 11.08.2015) Probability Fluvial flooding Seawater flooding CZ DE Total CZ DE Total high 26 232 101 520 127 752 0 2 860 2 860 medium 103 104 373 129 476 233 0 3 910 3 910 low 323 942 958 583 1 282 525 0 609 000 609 000 Table 16: Impacted IED-, or PRTR- und IPPC- facilities (Status: 11.08.2015) Probability Fluvial flooding Seawater flooding CZ DE Total CZ DE Total high 2 71 73 0 57 57 medium 25 170 195 0 62 62 low 66 861 927 0 159 159 Table 17:Number of areas in which economic activities or the environment is impacted (Status: 11.08.2015) Potential negative impacts Medium Probability Fluvial flooding Seawater flooding CZ (111) DE (281) Total (392) CZ (0) DE (1) Total (1) Economic activities 103 235 338 0 1 1 Environment (general) 70 235 305 0 1 1 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. 1.4.6Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk The iFRMP details the different objectives as defined by the Czech Republic and Germany. They were not commonly developed. However, 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 of 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. The general objectives established in the iFRMP are applicable regardless of potential effects from climate change on the risk of flooding The chapter on establishing objectives does not mention climate change. The international plan refers to a study from 2011 where it is stated that at present, the link between medium and long-term climate change and the frequency, duration and intensity of future floods and droughts is not yet sufficiently clear that it could be used as a reliable basis for planning water quantity and flood risk management. The specific chapter on climate change focuses on what regional scenarios have been developed and on overarching climate change strategies but does not make a link to the established common objectives in the iFRMP.

1.4.7Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 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 also for prioritising specific measures, still the iFRMPs mentions that the following measures will be prioritised: measures in areas with significant flood risk; prevention measures, especially those financed by municipalities or property owners; and measures to protect inhabitants and assets, e.g. preparation of information systems. However, the iFRMP also states that measures financed through public investments, especially from national or regional programmes, will be prioritised by the authorities providing the financing. A cost-benefit analysis was not employed for the prioritisation and planning of measures with a transboundary effect. The iFRMP states that an assessment methodology regarding the effects of the measures has not been developed at international level. The main common and coordinated groups of measures are: Table 18:Joint coordinated measures M21 Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation M22 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 M23 Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a 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...) M31 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 M32 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 M33 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. M34 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) M35 Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to enhance protection against flooding, which may include flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies M41 Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or warning system M42 Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish or enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning 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, taxCons), incl. disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, Temporary or permanent relocation, Other M52 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) M53 Recovery and Review, Other, Other recovery and review Lessons learnt from flood events Insurance policies The iFRMP states that measures under the FD were coordinated with those under the WFD to maximise synergies and reduce conflicts insofar as possible. Measures were grouped into three categories: Measures that support the objectives of the WFD, measures that cause conflicts, and measures that are not relevant to the WFD. The planned measures in the Elbe basin were assessed against these categories, with the majority of the measures supporting the WFD. The chapter ends by stating that more information can be found in the national FRMPs. There is no information regarding timing of the implementation of measures within the iFRMP. The iFRMP states that monitoring of the implementation of measures will take place at national level, so there is no common monitoring approach in the RB. 1.4.8Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Elbe The chapter on PFRA has a specific sub-section on how climate change was taken into account in the assessment. It 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 under the Elbe commission a document was produced summarizing the previous research, including presenting conclusions. It is not clear, however, if this resulted in the same climate scenario being used amongst the riparian countries. There is no information in the iFRMP regarding if and how climate change was considered in the setting of objectives or in the selection of national measures. 1.4.9Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Elbe RB ·In the consultation and publication of the Elbe River Basin’s iFRMPs a good practice example is that a summary of the results of the PFRA for the international basin was published in German and Czech and made available to the public. ·The interactive map with flood risk areas for the whole basin, with access to the national maps. 1.4.10 Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles In preparing for the second cycle of the FD, the following recommendations can be made to further improve cooperation: ·The return periods to assess flood risk are not the same in the Elbe Basin, especially for low probability events. Convergence should be envisaged wherever possible as it supports common risk assessments. ·More specific information should be provided on how the principle of solidarity was implemented in practice.

·Co-financing of measures should be considered to strengthen cross-border cooperation, but also to ensure that the measures taken are following an overarching concept to reduce the risks. ·Further information on potential basin wide impacts (e.g. number of buildings affected, area of agricultural land affected, number of areas under Article 6 WFD, etc.) should be provided. ·Overall conclusions of the flood risk assessment should be presented for the entire RB. ·The sources of flooding that have been considered in the definition of the transboundary APSFR should be specified. ·The iFRMP should be more specific about the common principles for prioritising measures. ·It should be considered to introduce a CBA for the planning and prioritising of measures with a transboundary effect. ·Climate change should be considered in the setting of objectives and in the prioritisation of measures in the Elbe RB. 1.5Odra River Basin 1.5.1Contextual information The Odra River Basin (RB) is shared by the Czech Republic, Germany and Poland. The Odra is considered a Category 1 RB, as an international river basin commission has been set up – The International Commission for the Protection of the Odra River against Pollution (ICPO) – to enable cooperation between the three Member States and an iFRMP exists. The objectives of the ICPO in the field of flood protection in the Odra RB are: ·preventing and permanently reducing the risk of flood damage; ·coordinating the implementation of the WFD and of the FD. 1.5.2Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB The ICPO, has produced an international FRMP (iFRMP) together with the Czech Republic, Germany and Poland. Within the ICPO, the common working group ‘Flood’ is tasked with the implementation of the FD. The activities of the ICPO (including meetings for joint cooperation) are financed primarily from the contributions of the three parties of the Agreement, as well as from donations, subsidies, interest and funds from other sources. The iFRMP states that Article 7(4) of the FD 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. The information is general and there is no mention of common financing of measures. The development of the iFRMP was done in consultation with the iRBMP. Measures of the FD were coordinated with those under the WFD to maximise synergies, to ensure information exchange and to ensure that also WFD objectives are met. 1.5.3Consultation and publication of the Odra iFRMP The iFRMP provides an overview of the public consultation that took place. An international Forum and Joint info days on the iFRMP were held to inform the public on the current state of play of both the WFD and the FD. A summary of the results of the PFRA for the RB was made available to the public. All documents, including the draft FRMPs and the FHRMs were published on the website of the Odra River Commission. There was also an international conference on the implementation of the WFD and the FD, where the latest results on flood risk management were presented.

1.5.4Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Odra The risk assessment has been coordinated to some extent on the international level. The iFRMP states that 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 even if a common set of criteria (not further specified) have been used. Furthermore, the potential adverse consequences of future floods considered in the different Member States are different. The general topics are the same though: Human health, Environment, Cultural heritage, Economic activity, but the sub-categories differ. The conclusions of the PFRA, FHRMs and of the “Action Programme of Flood Protection of Oder River” are presented for the entire international basin and can be summarized as follows: ·Maintaining or increasing the retention capacity in individual river areas, in order to effectively limit the risk of flooding. ·Reduce the vulnerability of flood-prone areas. ·Improve the legal framework for management and building in dyke protected areas with residual flood risks. ·The methods for hydrologic meteorological prognosis, prediction and pre-warning are to be further developed. ·Strengthen the dialogue with the potentially flood affected population to increase awareness about the flood risks as well as their self-sufficiency. ·Develop legal and economic instruments for flood management (e.g. reduction of the damage potential through financial incentives for resettlement). ·Regular modernization of the icebreaker fleet and the related infrastructure in the area of the Lower and Middle Odra. ·For flood risk management, an adapted maintenance of the coastal and inland waters as well as the related water service facilities are indispensable. 1.5.5Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Odra The probabilities of flooding used for developing the flood hazard maps differ in the three Member States for low and high probability flooding. For low probability flooding Germany used a return period of 200 years and Poland and the Czech Republic a return period of 500 years. For high probability flooding Germany used return periods between 10 and 25 years, Poland a return period of 10 years and the Czech Republic a return period of five or 20 years. Only for medium probability flooding, which is set at equal or larger than a 100 year return period in the Directive, the same return period was used in all three Member States namely 100 years. A common risk map for the whole basin was developed and is available in the iFRMP, but no hazard map has been developed. Instead there is an interactive map on the ICPO website which offers access to all national risk and hazard maps. No statistics for the different flooding scenarios on people potentially affected, on risks to economic activity, risks to the environment and risks to cultural heritage were included in the iFRMP. 1.5.6Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk 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: ·Avoid new risks; ·Reduction of existing risks; ·Reduction of adverse consequences during a flood event; ·Reduction of adverse consequences after a flood even.

The objectives are the same for all Member States of the ICPO. It is not clear whether the potential effects of climate change on the risk of flooding have been considered when setting objectives. The chapter on establishing objectives does not mention climate change. The specific chapter on climate change focuses on what regional scenarios have been developed and overarching climate change strategies but there is no link to the establishment of common objectives at the RB level. 1.5.7Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect There are some joint principles for defining and prioritising measures which relate to two transboundary projects and the agreed ‘flood protection program 2004’. In the latter a list of priority actions/measures has been agreed upon, 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. The bilateral agreement between Poland and Germany on improving water transport on the Odra river also sets priorities as regard to a common flow regulation concept. 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. No main common and coordinated measures were defined in the iFRMP. Chapter 4.2 describes the general measure categories which are of importance on supra-regional or RB level. Further, a table with the number of measures implemented in each of the countries is shown. Important measures with international impact are also briefly mentioned. The implementation of measures with international impact is coordinated within existing bilateral agreements and follow-up procedures. There is no information regarding timing of the implementation of measures within the iFRMP. The iFRMP states that monitoring of the implementation of measures will be based on the European Commission’s reporting requirements, but no further details are given. 1.5.8Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Odra The chapter on the PFRA has a specific sub-section on how climate change was taken into account in the assessment 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. There is no information regarding whether climate change was considered in the setting of objectives or in the selection of measures. 1.5.9Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Odra RB In the consultation and publication of the iFRMP for the Odra RB, a good practice example is that a summary of the results of the PFRA for the RB was made available to the public. 1.5.10Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles In preparing for the second cycle of the FD, the following recommendations can be made to further improve cooperation: ·Co-financing of measures should be considered to strengthen cross-border cooperation but also to ensure that the measures taken are following an overarching concept to reduce the risks. ·More specific information should be provided on how the principle of solidarity was implemented in practice. ·Information on the underlying assumptions/factors and common criteria for producing the FHRMs in the different Member States should be provided. ·Clear information should be included on any joint flood risk areas and common coordinated measures defined for joint risk areas if necessary. In case common measures are defined in the next iFRMP, information should be provided on joint implementation and monitoring and on how these are organised. ·The return periods to assess high and low probability flood risk are not the same in the Odra RB. Convergence should be envisaged wherever possible as it supports common risk assessments.

·Statistics on people potentially affected by the different flood scenarios, risk to economic activity, risk to environment and risk to cultural heritage should be provided. ·The iFRMP should be more specific on how the joint objectives for the management of flood risk have been agreed on and on whether the same objectives also apply to the Czech Republic. ·Climate change should be considered in the setting of objectives and prioritisation of measures. ·The iFRMP should be more specific on joint principles for defining and prioritising measures and on whether a CBA has been applied. 1.6Scheldt (Escaut) River Basin 1.6.1Contextual information The Scheldt River Basin (RB) is shared by Belgium, the Netherlands and France. It is considered a Category 1 RB, as an international river basin commission has been set up – The International Scheldt Commission (ISC) – to enable cooperation between the three Member States and an iFRMP exists. 1.6.2Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB The Scheldt RB is coordinated through the International Scheldt Commission, which has produced an iFRMP together with Belgium (Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels), the Netherlands and France. Within the river commission, the common working group PA7b works specifically on floods, hydrology and low flows. The iFRMP does not provide information on resource allocation for joint cooperation (other than for the functioning of the ISC), but it does outline the extensive work and meetings carried out over the years between the Member States. The iFRMP states that the requirements of the WFD have been considered by all riparian countries. The iFRMP has identified whether selected measures have beneficial, negative or no impact on the implementation of the WFD. The iFRMP however states that measures were expressed at a very abstract level and recommends carrying out a more specific assessment based on the specific measures planned at local level in the transboundary catchments. The iFRMP outlines the specific steps where mutual information or coordination between the Scheldt countries and regions is required when implementing the FD (i.e. exchange of relevant information during flood risk assessment; coordination of the identification of areas with a high risk of flooding; exchange of information prior to the production of flood risk maps; coordination during drafting of FRMPs). Furthermore, the iFRMP presents a list of relevant types of measures for the Scheldt and their potential transboundary effects and goes on to say that for measures which impact another country or region, the ISC assumes a coordinating role. There is no information on further coordination during the selection or implementation of measures. 1.6.3Consultation and publication of the Scheldt iFRMP The iFRMP does not specify any joint/transboundary communication strategy or activities. It notes that the public was not informed on an international level. Instead, it refers to Articles 9 and 10, which stipulate that it is the responsibility of the national and regional authorities to inform the public on the relevant national or regional plan, as well as on the content of the overarching, international part. Details of the national consultations are presented in the iFRMP. 1.6.4Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Scheldt In the reporting of the three Member States there is no explicit statement on whether the PFRA has been coordinated on an international level. However, the iFRMP specifies that an exchange of relevant information for the elaboration of the PFRA is obligatory. Furthermore, the information reported indicates that the PFRAs are based on national approaches. However, it is stated that Member States have exchanged information through the ISC during the preparation of the PFRA: Project group PA7B "Floods" managed the iterative process of information exchange and coordination on the PFRA. The iFRMP includes a description of the commonalities and differences between member states PFRA approaches, in particular regarding whether they produced PFRAs according to Article 4 (the approach followed by France) or whether they made use of Article 13 and applied transitional measures for the first cycle of the FD (as was done by Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia in Belgium, and the Netherlands). A synthesis of the outcome as a map is provided in the annexes. The sources of flooding that were considered in the PFRA depend on the location 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 an informative section, but no run-off risk was calculated for these. 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. 1.6.5Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Scheldt The Member States did not use the same probabilities of flooding for developing the flood hazard maps. The iFRMP provides a table showing the different probabilities considered in each Member State. Return periods between 100 and 10 000 years were used for low probability flooding, return periods between 25 and 300 years for medium probability flooding and return periods between 10 and 30 years for high probability flooding. A common map, showing APSFRs, was developed for the overall Scheldt RB, but no statistics on people potentially affected, risk to economic activity, risk to environment and risk to cultural heritage were made available in the iFRMP. However, these are provided in the national FRMPs.

A table is provided in the annexes showing that the risk assessment is coherent between all Member States regarding human health, environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. Some differences between Member States exist however: Flanders for example does not report any wastewater treatment plants but is also the only one presenting information on bus routes. Wallonia shows where phone booths and cabinets for electrical equipment are located, and Brussels shows open-air car parks. 1.6.6Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk The objectives set in the iFRMP were based on a comparison between the objectives set in the national FRMPs and are shared objectives. They focus on: 1) strengthening transboundary cooperation for the planning and monitoring of measures with a transboundary 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. The iFRMP highlights that climate change should be taken into account in the future. So far, the Netherlands and Flanders have taken climate change into account nationally when setting flood risk management objectives. 1.6.7Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect The iFRMP does not state that common principles for defining measures 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/Member States. The iFRMP also highlights which criteria are relevant for multi-lateral discussions. France, Brussels/Belgium and Wallonia/Belgium 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. Nationally, 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 in the iFRMP on how any measures with a transboundary effect were prioritised or whether a cost-benefit analysis was used. There is no information regarding timing of the implementation of measures within the iFRMP or a joint monitoring. The main common and coordinated measures are: Table 19:Joint coordinated measures M22 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 M23 Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc... M24 Prevention, Other prevention, Other measure to enhance