EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 73 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Luxembourg 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) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 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 Overview Overview of the assessment Good Practices Areas for further development Recommendations 1.Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1Reporting of the FRMPs 1.2Assessment of the FRMPs 2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 2.2Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMP 2.3Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 2.4Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps 2.5Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information 3. Setting of Objectives 3.1Focus of objectives

3.2Specific and measurable objectives 3.3Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 3.4Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 3.5Process for setting the objectives 3.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives 4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 4.1Cost of measures 4.2Funding of measures 4.3Measurable and specific (including location) 4.4Measures and objectives 4.5Geographic coverage/scale of measures 4.6Prioritisation of measures 4.7Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 4.8Progress of implementation of measures 4.9Measures taken under other Community Acts 4.10Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 4.11Specific groups of measures 4.12Recovery from and resilience to flooding 4.13Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 4.14Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures

5.Consideration of climate change 5.1Specific types of measures planned to address expected effects of climate change 5.2Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change 6.Cost-benefit analysis 6.1Good practices and areas for further development 7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation 7.1Competent authorities 7.2Public information and consultation 7.3Active involvement of Stakeholders 7.4Effects of consultation 7.5Strategic Environmental Assessment 7.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures Background & method Types of measures used in reporting List of Annex A tables & figures Measures overview Measure details: cost Measure details: objectives Measure details: authorities

Measure details: progress Measure details: other Annex B: Definitions of measure types Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)



Acronyms APSFR Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis EEA European Environment Agency FD Floods Directive FHRM Flood Hazard and Risk Map FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NWRM Natural Water Retention Measures PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments PoM Programme of Measures RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment UoM Unit of Management WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe Introduction The Floods Directive (FD) (2007/60/EC) requires each Member State (MS) to assess its territory for significant risk from flooding, to map the flood extent, identify the potential adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity in these areas, and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this flood risk. By the end of 2011, Member States were to prepare Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) to identify the river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding (Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk – APSFRs). By the end of 2013, Flood Hazard & Risk Maps (FHRMs) were to be drawn up for such areas. On this basis, Member States were to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by the end of 2015. This report assesses the FRMP for Luxembourg. Its structure follows a common assessment template used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources: ·Member State reporting to the European Commission on the FRMPs as per Articles 7 and 15 of the FD: this reporting provides an overview of the plans and details on their measures. ·One FRMP – Luxembourg reported one national FRMP covering the Mosel unit of management (UoM) LU_000.



Overview Figure 1 Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts

International River Basin Districts (within European Union) International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) Luxembourg has two UoMs, which are both international. These two UoMs correspond in territory to the two River Basin Districts (RBDs) that Luxembourg has established under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The Mosel UoM (LU000), which is part of the international Rhine UoM, covers 97.3 % of the surface area of the country. The Chiers UoM (LU001), which is part of the international Meuse UoM, covers 2.7 % of the surface area in Luxembourg. The latter is not considered flood risk relevant and no FRMP was prepared. Therefore, Luxembourg reported only one FRMP covering the Mosel UoM. No information was found concerning the legal status of the FRMP,. The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in Luxembourg, including the UoM code, the name, and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if the UoM reported all documents required to the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE – the FRMP as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML. Table 1Overview of UoMs in Luxembourg UoM Name Number of APSFRs XML Reported PDF Reported LU000 RHINE (Mosel) 15 Yes National level LU001 MEUSE (Chiers) - No No TOTAL 15 The FRMP can be downloaded in French or in German from the following web page: · https://eau.public.lu/directive_cadre_eau/directive_inondation/1er-cycle/HWRML-PL_final/index.html



Overview of the assessment The table below gives an overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs. The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: ·Evidence to the contrary: An explicit statement was found stating that the criterion was not met; ·No evidence: No information found to indicate that the criterion was met; ·Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication of the approach used for the criterion. Depending on the comment in the adjacent column, “some evidence” could also be construed as “weak evidence”. ·Strong evidence: Clear information provided, describing an approach followed in the FRMP to address the criterion. Table 2Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMP Criterion Evidence Comments FRM objectives have been established Strong evidence The broad overall objectives for flood management of LAWA (Länder Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser und Abwasser – Länder Working Group Water and Wastewater) in Germany have been adopted, to ensure a unified approach within trans-boundary Flood Management Partnerships. FRM objectives relate to... ...the reduction of potential adverse consequences Strong evidence This is part of the broad overall objectives adopted from LAWA, which includes ‘protecting populations immediately outside flood risk zones to minimise creating new risks’. ...to the reduction of the likelihood of flooding Strong evidence This is part of the broad overall objectives adopted from LAWA. ...to non-structural initiatives Strong evidence The focus of the objectives lies on non-structural measures for flood preparedness and or minimising the adverse consequences of flooding, such as raising public awareness. FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to... ...human health Strong evidence The proposed catalogue of measures (also adopted from LAWA and used for the selection of appropriate measures for Luxembourg) includes in its general framework of objectives the following: (i) Human Health: to reduce the number of people affected by flooding; ...economic activity Strong evidence (ii) to reduce the adverse consequences on economic activity (and not to create new ones); ...environment Strong evidence (iii) to avoid damage to the environment; ...cultural heritage Strong evidence (iv) to protect the cultural heritage by applying the same principles as for protecting the population and the environment. Measures have been... ...identified Strong evidence Luxembourg has reported 883 measures, which were identified (selected from the LAWA catalogue of measures) by local authorities, river and flood partnerships, citizens, enterprises, and other stakeholders to encourage local, private and corporate initiatives at national level. ...prioritised Some evidence An element of prioritisation is embodied in general terms in the overall objectives which include ‘defining measures to reduce the risk of flooding, which can be implemented in the short-term’, but there seemed to be no specific prioritising of individual measures, except in terms of compatibility with the WFD objectives (i.e. synergy with WFD = high priority). Relevant aspects of Article 7 have been taken into account such as... ...costs & benefits No evidence It is stated that no cost-benefit analyses have been carried out. However, a semi-quantitative effectiveness analysis was carried out with five categories (scale from zero to ++++) for the effects on flood risk, river flow, and WFD relevance. ...flood extent Strong evidence The flooded areas are shown for three different risk/hazard scenarios on the flood hazard/risk maps (which have legal status) and these were taken into account when selecting measures. ...flood conveyance No evidence There is no clear reference to flood conveyance. ...water retention Strong evidence Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in catchments and in wetlands, as well as reductions in impermeable surfaces, and restoration of flood plains. ...environmental objectives of the WFD Strong evidence The relevance of selected measures to the environmental objectives of the WFD was assessed in a semi-quantitative effectiveness analysis resulting in five categories of effectiveness (scale from zero to ++++). ...spatial planning/land use Strong evidence A number of spatial planning and land use measures are included/planned, e.g. measures to prevent new buildings, and other land use restrictions are subject to controls and legislation in flood risk/hazard areas, as designated on the maps. ...nature conservation Some evidence Protection zones under the Habitats and Birds Directives are indicated on the FHRMs, and reference is made to Natura 2000 sites, but it is not clear if or how these have been taken into account when selecting measures. ...navigation/port infrastructure Some evidence Navigation on the Mosel and the port at Mertert are mentioned in relation to a Seveso site and storage/handling of chemicals, but it is not clear if or how these have been taken into account when selecting measures. ...likely impact of climate change Some evidence Work is ongoing, e.g. the effect on flooding has been calculated, and the national strategy on climate change is under development. Coordination with other countries ensured in the RBD/UoM Strong evidence There has been close collaboration with Germany, France and Belgium in the area of Flood Risk Management (FRM), in particular within the International Commission for the Protection of the Mosel-Saar (ICPMS) (sub-basin of the Rhine). In addition, the preparation of the FHRMs and measures closely follow the German LAWA recommendations. Coordination ensured with WFD Strong evidence Measures have been co-ordinated with the requirements of the WFD. Measures were assessed in terms of their relevance to the WFD objectives and classified as M1 (synergy between the two Directives), M2 (potential conflict, requiring more detailed local assessment) and M3 (not relevant, but may require more detailed local assessment). Measures classified as M1 were considered high priority for implementation. The relevance to the WFD and the effect of each measure on WFD objectives are listed in Annex 1 (as a semi-quantitative assessment with five categories ranging from 0 to ++++). Active involvement of interested parties Strong evidence Public consultation was designed to involve stakeholders and relevant authorities and associations (newly formed Flood Management Partnerships) at an early stage of the planning process (starting in 2010/11) and involved three parts, i.e. (i) dissemination of information, (ii) active participation and (iii) formal hearings. The Flood Management Partnerships and pre-existing River Management Partnerships were actively involved in the selection of measures and continue to be involved in their implementation.



Good Practices The assessment identified the following good practices in the Luxembourgish FRMP assessed. Table 3Good practices in the Luxembourgish FRMP Topic area Good practices identified Integration of previously reported information in the FRMPs. The FHRMs have been refined to include more information on economic activity and measures and are available (on the internet) to the public, providing detail down to street or individual building level, for three different hazard/risk scenarios. The information on the maps include quantitative impacts, such as flood extent and water depth (ranges), and number of people (ranges) affected, whilst economic activities are shown on the maps (separate land use overlay), including old discharges/polluted sites, Seveso and Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) risk sites, sensitive buildings (incl. schools, hospitals) and protected areas (Drinking Water, Habitats and Bird Directives). Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk. The overall objectives are clear and comprehensive, developed also through public and international/cross-boundary consultation. Planning/implementing of measures and their prioritization for the achievement of objectives. The FRMP (in its Annex I) provides a semi-quantitative effectiveness analysis of measures with five categories (scale from zero to ++++) for the effects on: flood risk, river flow, and WFD relevance. The great majority (90 %) of individual measures are NWRMs. Consideration of climate change in the FRMPs assessed. Climate change has been investigated and the effects on river flows at the different risk scenarios have been estimated in terms of percentage change in river flows at 10 locations (fluvial flooding is the only type considered relevant). Public participation. Public consultation involved a wide range of stakeholders and consisted of (i) provision of information, (ii) active involvement in the preparation of the FRMP and selection of measures and continuing involvement in implementing measures, and (iii) formal hearings. The results of active involvement and wider consultation were largely incorporated into the FRMP. Flood risk governance. Whilst overall responsibility for the implementation of both the Floods Directive and the WFD lies with the Administration for Water Management in the Ministry for Sustainable Development, relevant Local Authorities and stakeholders play a large role in flood risk management, including via Flood Management Partnerships. International issues in flood risk management. There is good trans-boundary co-operation within the International Commissions for the Protection of the Saar-Mosel and the Rhine, including a unified approach with Germany to overall objectives and selection of measures at national level, and consequently covering trans-boundary APSFRs, facilitated by three transboundary Flood Management Partnerships. Areas for further development The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the Luxembourgish FRMP assessed. Table 4Areas for further development in the Luxembourgish FRMP Topic area Areas identified for further development Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk. There are no specific (measurable) objectives and therefore no quantitative targets to achieve/measure, although it is mentioned that more detailed objectives were developed at local or APSFR level. Whereas Annex 1 of the FRMP lists all measures together with the expected implementation time frame (the majority are planned for 2015-2021), it is not clear if or how the objectives are measurable. Planning/implementation of measures and their prioritization for the achievement of objectives. There is no clear information on costs and funding sources. There is no clear method for demonstrating how measures will contribute to the objectives of the FRMP (neither objectives nor measures are specific), although links between the 13 measure types and 25 overall objectives are indicated and individual measures are linked to measure types. There is no clear prioritisation of individual measures, except in terms of compatibility with the WFD objectives. Consideration of climate change in the FRMPs assessed. The potential change on flood risk, as a consequence of climate change, does not seem to have been taken into account when defining objectives and measures. No reference to the national climate change adaptation strategy was found. Use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in the FRMPs assessed. Although a semi-quantitative effectiveness assessment was undertaken, no CBA was carried out. Flood risk governance. It is not always clear in the FRMP who is responsible at local level for undertaking specific measures, although a database (LuxMaPro3) has been quoted. It provides details of measures and identifies local responsibilities but is currently only available for administrative purposes. Recommendations Based on the reported information and the FRMP, the following recommendations are made to enhance flood risk management (not listed in any particular order): ·Specific and measurable objectives should be developed to the extent possible, which would then allow clear targets to be set and achievements of progress to be measured against a baseline. How measures link to objectives should be considered. ·The potential change on flood risk, as a consequence of climate change, should be taken into account to the extend possible when defining objectives and measures; Coordination between the FRMP and the national climate change adaptation strategy should be ensured or elaborated upon. ·Costs of measure estimations and specific funding sources should be included in the FRMP. ·The prioritisation approach in the FRMP should be evaluated with a view to strengthening in the 2nd cycle. A CBA of measures should be developed and undertaken whenever possible. ·The timeline of implementation of measures should be more clearly set out in the FRMP, and/or provide key information from the LuxMaPro database.



1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1 Reporting of the FRMPs Luxembourg reported only one FRMP covering the Mosel UoM (LU000), part of the Rhine international UoM/RBD. No FRMP was reported for the other UoM in Luxembourg (Chiers, LU001, part of the Meuse international UoM/RBD) as it was not considered relevant for flood risk. Luxembourg did not use Art. 13(3) of the Floods Directive, which allows Member States to make use of previous flood risk management plans (provided their content is equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive). The FRMP can be downloaded in French or in German from the following web page: · https://eau.public.lu/directive_cadre_eau/directive_inondation/1er-cycle/HWRML-PL_final/index.html

1.2 Assessment of the FRMPs The sole FRMP reported by Luxembourg has been assessed: Table 5UoM in Luxembourgish FRMP UoM code UoM Name LU000 Rhine

2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1 Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment The conclusions of the PFRA are provided in a textual description and summary maps of the APSFRs covered by the FRMP. The history of flood protection in Luxembourg is described at length from the time of significant flooding events in 1983, through to the first collaboration on Flood Risk Management (FRM) with neighbouring EU Member States within the International Commission for the Protection of the Mosel-Saar (ICPMS, sub-basin of the Rhine) in 1995, and the description of various action plans up to 2010. The FRMP then briefly describes the designation of 15 APSFRs (these are along 15 different river courses) reported in 2012; these areas are listed including the four countries the rivers are shared with, together with a very unclear printed map indicating the APSFRs (detailed maps can be accessed on the Geoportal). The designation of the APSFRs has not changed since 2012. The FRMP states that Art.13(1)(b) of the Floods Directive was applied. The method of APSFR designation is described briefly and involved collaboration with neighbouring countries. Examples of flood hazard and flood risk maps are shown in the FRMP and a link is provided, where the public can access maps for any area, town or river, with three different levels of risk or hazard (high, medium or low), different map backgrounds, including overlay of land use maps and legends. Maps can cover the whole of Luxembourg or focused in at street level, but they are not specific to an APSFR. Historic flood events can also be looked up. The rivers and flooded areas are shown on the flood risk maps, but there seems to be no information on flood conveyance routes, although some may be found when focusing in on locations on the maps where measures are also indicated. 2.1.1 Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs There has been close collaboration with Germany, France and Belgium on flood risk management since 1995 within the ICPMS, and the designation of APSFRs was based on an Interreg IIIB project, TIMIS Flood (Transitional Internet Map Information System on Flooding), carried out with France and Germany, together with historical data and in agreement with the relevant authorities of neighbouring countries.

2.1.2 Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHR maps There were no major changes other than some adjustments to FHRMs in 2013, following public consultation and reference to updated data. The FRMP reports that some recalculations were performed on the maps for APSFRs Alzette (A01), the Sauer (A03), the Roudbach/Attert confluence (A12/A11) and localised adjustments were made on the Roudbach (A12), Syr (A02), the White Emz (A05), Pall (A13), Mamer (A15) and Our (A08). Recalculations of mapping data involved consideration of additional measures (extended re-naturalisation measures in the Alzette APSFR A01, and ecologically oriented flood protection measures in the Sauer APSFR A03); and in some locations more detailed modelling using a two-dimensional water level model (Nordstad in A01, Roudbach/Attert confluence A12/A11). These updates were undertaken in the maps made available to the public in 2014. 2.2 Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMP Examples of FHRMs are shown in the FRMP and the link for accessing the maps is provided. The cause of flooding is not specified on the maps, but they are fluvial maps as confirmed by the Luxembourg authorities (with flooding caused by heavy rainfall). Other flood types do not seem to be relevant or have not been assessed (coastal flooding is not relevant as Luxembourg is landlocked). The information on the maps include quantitative impacts, such as flood extent and water depth (ranges), and number of people (ranges) affected for three different risk/hazard scenarios, whilst economic activities are shown on the maps (separate land use overlay), including old discharges/polluted sites, Seveso and IED risk sites, sensitive buildings (incl. schools, hospitals) and protected areas (Drinking Water, Habitats and Bird Directives). 2.2.1 Maps for shared flood risk areas The maps are national, but the APSFRs shared with other countries are indicated in the FRMP (text, not as a map). As indicated previously, there has been close co-operation with neighbouring Member States, mainly within the ICPMS, as well as within the European Interreg III project B TIMIS Flood (Transitional Internet Map Information System on Flooding). The risk evaluations were agreed with authorities of neighbouring countries (France and Germany), and are to be reviewed and updated where appropriate by the end of 2018 and every six years thereafter. The preparation of the FHRMs and measures also closely follow the German LAWA recommendations and is agreed with the relevant neighbouring MS.

2.2.2 Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps The FHRMs were used as a basis for planning and prioritising measures, including the identification of ‘flooding hotspots’ requiring particularly urgent actions to reduce the flood risk. They formed an important tool to promote public participation (beyond the initial public consultation process), including public information, and allowing stakeholders to suggest appropriate measures (from the German LAWA catalogue of measures), which were then examined by experts and allocated to risk areas as appropriate. 2.3 Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas Any changes in the identification of APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas since December 2011 should be reflected in the FRMP. There are 15 APSFRs (Codes: A01-A15) and these have not changed since reporting in 2012, although some adjustments were made as detailed above. No changes or updated information concerning the FHRMs after 2013 were found; the FHRMs available on the Geoportal are those produced in 2013. 2.4 Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps The 2014 FHRM assessment identified the following areas for further development for Luxembourg: ·Economic activity: According to Art.6(5)(b) of the Floods Directive, flood risk maps shall show the potential adverse consequences associated with flood scenario in terms of type of economic activity. Luxembourg did not show the type of economic activities in its FHRMs. ·Links to national maps: Links to national FHRMs were not reported to the European Commission. ·Climate change: Climate change was not included in the analysis. All the areas for further development identified have been addressed, as follows: ·Economic activity: The FHRMs can be overlaid with a land-use map which includes details, such as Agricultural areas, Vineyards, Orchards, Urban areas, Industrial/ commercial zones, etc. However, the land use map added in 2013 was not the latest version, and the FRMP states that this will be updated in the next cycle. Old discharges/contaminated sites, Seveso sites and IED sites are indicated on the current maps. ·Links to national maps for all UoMs: A link is provided in the FRMP where FHRMs can be called up for any location (the maps had been available to the public, though the link was not provided in previous reporting). ·Climate change: According to the FRMP, this has now been assessed and the effects on river flows at the different risk scenarios have been estimated in terms of percentage change in river flows at 10 locations. They do not, however, seem to have been included in the current maps, as they are predictions for 2021-2050. 2.5 Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information The following good practices have been identified: ·International co-operation and public participation was strong in the previous steps (see also section 7 for details). There is close co-operation with neighbouring Member States (Germany, France and Belgium), mainly within the ICPMS. The preparation of the FHRMs and the selection of measures also closely follow the German LAWA approach and are agreed with the relevant neighbouring Member States. ·The FHRMs have been refined to include more information on economic activity and on measures and are available on the internet to the public, providing detail down to street or individual building level for three different hazard/risk scenarios. ·The information on the maps include quantitative impacts, such as flood extent and water depth (ranges), and number of people (ranges) affected, whilst economic activities are shown on the maps (separate land use overlay), including old discharges/polluted sites, Seveso and IED risk sites, sensitive buildings (incl. schools, hospitals) and protected areas (Drinking Water, Habitats and Bird Directives).



3. Setting of Objectives

3.1 Focus of objectives The FRMP does not include specific objectives. Instead, the broad overall objectives set out by LAWA in Germany have been adopted and included in the FRMP for Luxembourg. These objectives are: ·reduce flood occurrence (prevent new risks); ·reduce the existing risks (protection); ·reduce the adverse consequences of floods (preparedness); and ·reduce the adverse consequences of floods after the event (recovery and review). By using the LAWA objectives and preparing the FRMP in line with Germany’s approach, a unified approach is ensured within the three transboundary Flood Management Partnerships (Luxembourg created a total of five of these voluntary associations of local authorities, official bodies and other stakeholders, actively involved in the preparation of the FRMP – see more detail in Section 7). The overriding objectives are stated as ‘defining measures to reduce the risk of flooding, which can be implemented in the short-term’, and in addition, ‘protecting populations immediately outside flood risk zones so as to minimise creating new risks’ (protecting those inside the risk zones is implicit in the first objective). Consequently, in the FRMP assessed: ·The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods. ·The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding. ·The objectives aim to coordinate flood risk with neighbouring transboundary countries (e.g. to ensure that measures taken do not increase the flood risk in the neighbouring country). ·The objectives have another focus (reducing adverse consequence after a flood event). According to the FRMP, more detailed objectives are set at local or APSFR level; it is not clear what these are (and if they are specific/measurable/time-bound) as they are not set out in the FRMP but are used as a basis for developing the measures. 3.2 Specific and measurable objectives In Luxembourg, the objectives are neither specific nor measurable. No specific measurable objectives have been set (only some more detailed regional/local objectives, which served as a basis for selecting measures, but have not been published). 3.3 Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods The overall objectives of reducing adverse consequences are explained in terms of human health, economic activity, environment and cultural heritage (see also the following paragraphs). 3.4 Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding The broad overall objectives and the catalogue of measures (status 2013) from the German working group LAWA formed the basis to select more detailed objectives and proposed measures (proposed catalogue of objectives and measures, see below).The more detailed objectives were elaborated at local or APSFR level for each given situation (but not included in the FRMP, although the links between the 13 overall objectives and the 25 measure types are described in the plan), to serve as a basis for developing measures. The main focus of these proposed catalogues of objectives and measures was to provide guidance to local authorities, river and flood partnerships, citizens and enterprises and to encourage local, private and corporate initiatives under the general framework of: (a) ‘Human Health’: reducing the number of people affected by flooding; (b) ‘Environment’: avoiding damage to the environment; (c) ‘Cultural Heritage’: protecting the cultural heritage by applying the same principles as for protecting the population and the environment; and (d) ‘Economic Activity’: reducing the adverse consequences on economic activity (and not to create new ones). The proposed ‘catalogue of objectives’ is mentioned in the FRMP but not included, as it seems to have served as a working document to develop (through active participation of the public - see section 7 of this report) the final catalogue of measures in Annex 1 of the FRMP, which does not include the detailed objectives, although individual measures are listed against measure types.

3.5 Process for setting the objectives Objectives have been co-ordinated at national (various administrations, including local community authorities and the public at large) and international level (Flood Risk and River Management Partnerships, International Commissions for the Protection of the Mosel-Saar, the Rhine and the Meuse). Public participation was an integral part of preparing the FRMP, including setting overall objectives, and more detailed local objectives and measures. Whilst effects of climate change have been addressed, the absence of specific objectives means it is not possible to assess how and if they have been addressed in choosing measures, except in a broad overall context. 3.6 Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives The following good practices were identified: ·The overall objectives are clear and comprehensive. ·The process to develop objectives included extensive public consultation (at local community level – see Section 7 of this report) and trans-boundary co-operation, i.e. a unified approach with Germany to overall objectives setting and selection of measures at national level, and consequently covering trans-boundary APSFRs. The following area for further development was identified: ·Luxembourg’s FRMP does not set specific objectives and therefore has no quantitative targets to achieve or measure progress against, although it is mentioned that more detailed objectives were developed at local or APSFR level. Although Annex 1 of the FRMP lists all measures together with the expected implementation time frame, the majority are planned for 2015-2021, it is not clear if or how the objectives are measurable.

4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives Luxembourg has reported a total number of 813 individual measures to be implemented at local level and 70 aggregated measures: the latter, according to the FRMP, can be implemented at national level and include strategic/conceptual measures (see below). In consequence, the total number of measures is 883. Measures are reported for the aspects of flood risk management: Prevention, Protection, Preparedness, Recovery & Review, and “Other Measures”,. The Luxembourgish catalogue of Measures is based on the German LAWA Catalogue of Measures, which includes a “300 series” and a “500 series” of measures; the numbering system of the LAWA catalogue has also been adopted, rather than the EU coding (which is found in Annex B below). The 300 series of measures (numbers 301-328) selected for Luxembourg includes measures divided into the five EU aspects. The 500 series are “strategic/conceptual measures” implemented at national level only (see below). The number of Prevention measures is very low (18 out of 883, 2 % of the total) while the great majority of measures is for Protection (823 of 883, 93 % of the total). However, the 25 “strategic/conceptual measures” and some other aggregated measures, which apply nationwide, relate to overall risk reduction and prevention: see tables A3 and A4 in Annex A of this document, where the 25 strategic/conceptual measures are listed under “other aggregated measures”. Therefore, the overall number of measures for prevention is actually higher than 2%. Among the 25 “strategic/conceptual measures” which apply at national level, the following measures are included: preparation of concepts, studies, assessments and changes in legislation; information and educational measures; advisory measures; setting up or revising promotional programmes; and investigations into climate change. These measures relate to overall risk reduction and prevention in general across Luxembourg and correspond to the 25 “other” aggregated measures, (see Table A4 in Annex A of this report). Please see Annex A for further details and supplementary tables and charts on measures. 4.1Cost of measures Luxembourg’s FRMP and reporting sheets did not provide information on costs or budgets of measures planned. 4.2 Funding of measures Luxembourg’s FRMP and reporting sheets did not provide any information on funding of the measures, except in relation to ‘Preparedness Measures’ as follows: "because it is not possible to take out insurance against flood damage in Luxembourg, funds have to be set aside at national and/or private level. (Funds for recovery can be obtained from the State if a national disaster has been declared)". 4.3 Measurable and specific (including location) The measures have no quantitative element and are therefore not measurable, but many are defined at local community level and the locations are indicated on the Flood Risk Maps.

4.4 Measures and objectives It is not clear how the measures will contribute to the achievement of objectives, nor clear by how much they will contribute. It is also not clear whether the objectives will be achieved when all measures are completed. Since both the objectives and the measures reported for Luxembourg are not specific, it is not possible to make any quantitative assessment of achievement of objectives. However, Annex I of the FRMP (Catalogue of measures) lists measures and includes a semi-quantitative effectiveness analysis for each measure with five categories (scale from zero to ++++) for the effect on flood risk and river flow, and WFD relevance. 4.5 Geographic coverage/scale of measures The FRMP and online flood maps linked to specific layers in the geoportal provide information on the location of measures. The 25 “strategic/conceptual measures” are national (UoM)/implemented at national level (e.g. studies, assessments and legislative matters, information and educational measures, advisory services, programme promotions and studies related to climate change) whereas the majority of the other measures are implemented predominantly at the levels of local community and the seven flood risk hot spots level (this can be seen on the Flood Risk Maps). In addition, Annex I of the FRMP (Catalogue of measures) indicates whether the measures selected for Luxembourg from the LAWA Catalogue are planned or implemented at national or local level, and lists the relevant municipality, community, partnership or APSFR, as appropriate. Luxembourg reported the geographic coverage of the effects of the measures. The geographic coverage of all individual measures (813) is a single APSFR (i.e. measures are uniquely apportioned to individual APSFRs). For the 70 aggregated measures, the geographic coverage is the UoM (for details see Table A6 and Figure A3 in Annex A below). 4.6 Prioritisation of measures Luxembourg listed all measures as ‘very high’ priority; this is in line with the overall objective of selecting measures which can be implemented in the short-term. No CBA has been made to prioritise the measures. Instead, measures have been selected from the German LAWA Catalogue of measures, in line with the overriding objective of ‘defining measures to reduce the risk of flooding, which can be implemented in the short-term’, and ‘protecting populations immediately outside flood risk zones so as to minimise creating new risks’. However, the results of the semi-quantitative effectiveness analysis that was carried out was used to prioritise measures that had synergies with the WFD (for details see the section ‘Measures taken under other Community Acts’). 4.7 Authorities responsible for implementation of measures Luxembourg did not report information about the responsible authorities and level of responsibility for the measures in the reporting sheet. The FRMP states that overall responsibility lies with the Ministry for Sustainable Development and the Administration for Water Management; the latter has responsibility for measures involving research, investigations and administrative acts. Direct responsibility for other national measures lies with various national institutions (not detailed). Local measures and those at APSFR level are with local communities and/or Flood Management or River Management Partnerships. No details are provided, but there is reference to a database (LuxMaPro) for measures implemented at local community level, where for each measure the local authority, working group or Flood Management Partnerships responsible for its implementation is named. The FRMP states that at the time of its publication, this database was a restricted administrative tool, but the long-term aim is to make it public on the Geoportal ( http://eau.geoportail.lu ). 4.8 Progress of implementation of measures The FRMP (in its Annex I) lists three timeframes for measures: 2009-2015 (for completed measures); 2009-2021and 2015-2021. The FRMP indicates that 30 measures (3 % of the 883 measures) had been completed by 2015, 88 (10 %) have been adopted and are ongoing (mainly in the timeframe 2015-21), and the great majority – 765 measures, 87 % of the total - are indicated as proposals only (still to be adopted, and to be implemented if adopted), although the timeframe for most is given as 2015-2021 (a small number seems to have no timeframe). Nearly all the measures completed – 27 out of 30 – were in the area of protection. This, however, is just under 4 % of all 823 protection measures. A further 84 protection measures (10 % of total protection measures) are ongoing, but the great majority had not started (711, 86%). Only one prevention measure was ongoing, and 17 not started; two preparedness measures had been completed and 14 not started; for recovery and review, there is only one measure and it had not been started (for more details see Table A8 and Figure A5 in Annex A). 4.9 Measures taken under other Community Acts Member States have been asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure has been implemented. In Luxembourg, measures have been co-ordinated with the requirements of the WFD. Measures were assessed in terms of their relevance to the WFD objectives and classified as M1 (synergy between the two Directives – 11 measure types), M2 (potential conflict, requiring more detailed local assessment– seven measure types) and M3 (not relevant, but may require more detailed local assessment – seven measure types). Measures classified as M1 were considered high priority for implementation. The relevance to the WFD and the effect of each measure on WFD objectives are listed in Annex I of the FRMP as a semi-quantitative assessment (five categories ranging from zero to ++++). In the context of assessing the effects on the WFD objectives, the FRMP states that these effectiveness analyses were conducted within the scope of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), with consideration of the effects on (i) the public and health, (ii) plants, animals and biodiversity, (iii) soil, (iv) water, (v) climate and atmosphere, (vi) landscape, and (vii) culture and property. No further details of the effectiveness analysis are provided. In addition, IED (Directive 2010/75/EU) and Seveso site risks are indicated on the flood risk maps. The site operators have a mandatory responsibility to take all reasonable actions to secure the installations and to prevent any release of substances from the site in case of flooding. No specific measures are indicated for such sites. Protection zones under the Drinking Water, Habitats and Bird directives are indicated on the FHRMs, although it is not clear how these affected the selection of measures. 4.10 Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP

There is reference to a national database (LuxMaPro) which forms the basis for the assessment of progress in the implementation of measures. For each measure those bodies responsible for its implementation (national or local authority, working group, Flood Management or River Management Partnerships) are named together with an agreed estimated implementation timeline; this database can be consulted by those involved in the implementation of measures to check on progress. The information on the database will be reviewed at each reporting cycle (every six years) and will form the basis of future planning. The baseline (or ‘status quo’) seems to be the finalised flood hazard/risk maps made available to the public in 2015. These include the extent of flooding at different hazard scenarios and the number of people affected. As a minimum, the ‘status quo’ must be maintained, or improvements must be achieved through the implementation of measures. 4.11 Specific groups of measures With regard to spatial planning/land use measures, a number of spatial planning and land use measures are included/planned, including measures to prevent new buildings and establish other land use restrictions in flood hazard areas (low, medium and high, as shown in the FHRMs). The FHRMs have legal status as set out in a regulation issued in 2015 under the Luxembourg Water Law of 9.12.2008. According to this law, it is prohibited to designate new building developments in flood risk areas. In already designated development areas, it is only permitted to proceed with building if there is no flood risk at the site itself and there is no loss of any water retention area. Any building projects in areas covered by the three different flood risk levels (Q10: every 10 years; Q100: every 100 years; and Qextrem: rare extreme events >100 years) on the maps require permission from the Minister responsible for water. To sum up, any building and other land uses in flood risk areas as designated on the maps are subject to controls and legislation and enforcement is under direct responsibility of the national Water Administration (in the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Environment). Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in catchments (three measures) and in wetlands (725 measures), as well as reductions in impermeable surfaces (one measure), rainwater management (two measures) and restoration of flood plains (16 measures). These measures are listed in Annex 1 of the FRMP, but comparison with the NWRM types indicated in Annex B (below) is not straightforward as the classification systems are not the same. Nevertheless, NWRMs comprise the lion’s share (about 90 %) of individual measures. Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. Protected areas under the Habitats and Birds Directives are indicated on the FHRMs, and reference is made to Natura 2000 sites, but it is not clear if or how these have been taken into account when selecting measures. With regard to navigation and port infrastructure, navigation on the Mosel and the port at Mertert are mentioned in relation to a Seveso site and storage/handling of chemicals, but it is not clear if or how these have been taken into account when selecting measures. Luxembourg has also reported dredging measures. One measure (sand removal, Luxembourg measure M320) is being implemented in APSFR A05, and investigations to check whether the measure should be implemented have been proposed for another APSFR, A03. 4.12 Recovery from and resilience to flooding The role of insurance policies is discussed in the FRMP. The FRMP states that it is not possible in Luxembourg to take out commercial insurance against flood damage. Consequently, Luxembourg Measure M44 for financial preparedness has been proposed at national level, with the emphasis on public information to encourage the public to put their own measures in place to guard against flood damage; the measure also includes information how to claim funds for recovery from the State, but the latter is possible only if a national disaster has been declared. There is no information on environmental liability, except for example Seveso sites, for which it is stated that the site operators have a mandatory responsibility to take all reasonable measures to secure the installations and to prevent any release of substances from the site in case of flooding. There is no information whether ecosystem services are considered in estimating restoration costs in cases where potentially polluting sites and installations may be flooded. 4.13 Coordination with the Water Framework Directive The table below shows how the development of the FRMP has been coordinated with the development of the second River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) of the WFD. Table 6Coordination of the development of the FRMP with the development of the second River Basin Management Plan of the WFD LU000 Integration of FRMP and RBMP into a single plan Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP ✔ Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD ✔ The objectives of the Floods Directive were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a ✔ Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in the FRMP ✔ The RBMP PoM includes win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and NWRMs a ✔ Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence maintenance or construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and RBMPs ✔ Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included ✔ Consistent and compliant application of WFD Article 4(7) and designation of heavily modified water bodies with measures taken under the FD e.g. flood defence infrastructure The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, have been adapted to take into account WFD Environmental Objectives a ✔ The use of sustainable drainage systems, such as the construction of wetland and porous pavements, have been considered to reduce urban flooding and also to contribute to the achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives ✔ Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD As mentioned in the section ‘Measures taken under other Community Acts’, measures have been co-ordinated with the requirements of the WFD, with the emphasis on information exchange, consideration of the effectiveness of measures and shared advantages (win-win situations) for achieving the environmental objectives of the Floods Directive and the WFD (Art.4). There is no direct reference to WFD KTMs, but all FRMP measures have been assessed for WFD relevance and effectiveness. An example of synergy between the objectives of the Floods Directive and the WFD is given as keeping flood plains clear of new buildings and measures for increasing natural water retention; which may be covered by KTMs 6, 7 and 23. In the reporting sheets for the Floods Directive, the field concerning WFD measures was filled with a series of numbers. It is not clear how these numbers relate to WFD measures. 4.14 Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures

The following good practices were identified: ·The FRMP (in its Annex I) provides a semi-quantitative effectiveness analysis of measures with five categories (scale from zero to ++++) for the effects on: flood risk, river flow, and WFD relevance. ·The majority of individual measures (725 or about 90 %) are NWRMs. The following areas for further development were identified: ·There is no information on costs and budgets for measures, nor on funding sources. ·The FRMP does not have a method for demonstrating how measures will contribute to the objectives of the Floods Directive (as neither objectives nor measures are specific and measurable). ·There is no clear prioritisation of individual measures, except in terms of compatibility with the WFD objectives.



5. Consideration of climate change Climate change impacts are discussed in the FRMP and the effects on river flows at the different risk scenarios have been estimated in terms of percentage change in river flows at 10 locations. On average the estimated increase in river flow amounted to 7-9 % for the different risk scenarios (High, medium, low risk), with maximum increases of 18-19 %. These increases do not seem to have been included in the current maps (published in 2015), as they are predictions for 2021-2050. These predictions of the river flows for the period 2021-2050 were based on data from the years 1971-2000 and simulations. There is no reference to the national adaptation strategy, adopted in 2011, or information about a shift in the occurrence of extreme events and changes in numerical recurrence times. Apart from a measure for investigations into the effects of climate change (M509, national level), no specific measures seem to have been planned directly in relation to mitigation of the impact of climate change. 5.1 Specific types of measures planned to address expected effects of climate change There is no indication that the additional risk due to climate change has been taken into account so far or what specific measures have been planned to mitigate its impacts. 5.2 Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change The following good practice was identified: ·The effect of climate change on river flows has been investigated and estimated for the period 2021-2050, in terms of percentage change in river flows at 10 locations (as fluvial flooding is the only type considered relevant), and further investigations are planned. The following areas for further development were identified:

·No reference to the national climate change adaptation strategy. ·The potential change on flood risk, as a consequence of climate change, does not seem to have been taken into account when defining objectives and measures. 6. Cost-benefit analysis The FRMP states clearly that no CBA has been carried out. Instead a semi-quantitative effectiveness analysis was carried out for each measure in the particular situation of each APSFR, taking into account the effort invested and the benefit of implementing measures. Firstly, economic considerations were included when assessing the effectiveness of each measure in each particular situation. Secondly, the effectiveness in terms of achieving WFD objectives was considered. To evaluate the feasibility of implementing measures, flood risk reductions and improvements in the risk management were taken into account, as well as WFD relevance. The results of the analysis are listed against each measure in Annex 1 of the FRMP, using five categories on a scale of ‘zero to ++++’ for each of the effects on flood risk, river flow, and WFD relevance (this information is also summarised in the main report of the FRMP). No details concerning trans-boundary cost-benefit or effectiveness analyses are provided, but overall there is close co-operation with the International Commissions for the Protection of the Mosel/Saar (ICPMS) and the Rhine (ICPR), and in particular the application of the German LAWA catalogue of measures. 6.1 Good practices and areas for further development The following good practice was identified: ·A semi-quantitative effectiveness analysis was carried out for each measure in the particular situation of each APSFR, and it included consideration of the relevance of measures to the achievement of WFD objectives. The following area for further development was identified: ·No CBA was carried out.

7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation 7.1 Competent authorities Based on Luxembourg’s FRMP and its reporting sheet, the Competent Authorities and the UoMs identified for the Floods Directive have not been altered. Documents reported to the European Commission on this subject have not been updated since they were reported in 2010. Overall responsibility for the implementation of both the Floods and the Water Framework Directives lies with the Administration for Water Management in the Ministry for Sustainable Development, but relevant local authorities, Flood Management Partnerships, described below, and other stakeholders also play a large part in flood risk management. 7.2 Public information and consultation The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the UoM assessed concerning the draft FRMP. Information on how the consultation was actually carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section: Table 7 Methods used to inform the public and interested parties of the FRMP LU000 Media (papers, TV, radio) ✔ Internet ✔ Digital social networking Printed material ✔ Direct mailing Invitations to stakeholders Local Authorities ✔ Meetings ✔ Source: FRMP For an initial early public consultation from December 2010 to April 2011, the draft FHRMs were made available to the public on the government’s Geoportal website, and paper copies as well as digital versions were sent to the relevant Local Community Administrations. Information and discussion fora were held to encourage active involvement by joining Flood Management Partnerships. Following publication of the draft FRMP (with the FHRMs also provided), public consultation continued: the public was informed through four daily newspapers and two government internet sites. In addition, two public meetings were held by invitation of the Environment Minister at two different locations in January 2015.

The table below shows how the actual consultation was carried out: Table 8 Methods used for the actual consultation LU000 Via Internet ✔ Via digital social networking Direct invitation Exhibitions Workshops, seminars or conferences ✔ Telephone surveys Direct involvement in drafting FRMP ✔ Flood Management Partnerships ✔ Source: FRMP Public consultation was designed to involve stakeholders and relevant authorities and associations at an early stage of the planning process (starting in 2010/11) and involved three parts, i.e. (i) dissemination of information, (ii) active participation and (iii) formal hearings. Flood Management Partnerships were formed for specific river sections to actively participate in drafting the FRMP. The table below shows how the documents for the consultation were provided: Table 9 Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation LU000 Downloadable ✔ Direct mailing (e-mail) Direct mailing (post) Paper copies distributed at exhibitions Paper copies available in municipal buildings (town hall, library etc.) ✔ Source: FRMP Downloadable electronic versions and paper copies were provided, and their existence was publicised through government internet pages, daily papers and meetings. 7.3 Active involvement of Stakeholders As part of the overall consultation, authorities should encourage the active involvement of stakeholders. The table below shows the groups of stakeholders that have been actively involved in the development of the FRMP assessed: Table 10 Groups of stakeholders actively involved in the development of the FRMP LU000 Civil Protection Authorities such as Government Departments responsible for emergency planning and coordination of response actions ✔ Flood Warning / Defence Authorities ✔ Drainage Authorities Emergency services ✔ Water supply and sanitation ✔ Agriculture / farmers ✔ Energy / hydropower ✔ Navigation / ports Fisheries / aquaculture Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) ✔ NGO's including nature protection, social issues (e.g. children, housing) Consumer Groups Local / Regional authorities ✔ Academia / Research Institutions National Administration for Nature and Forestry ✔ Flood and River Management Partnerships ✔ Source: FRMP In addition to the official bodies listed above in the table, five Flood Management Partnerships (transboundary co-operation on flood risk management via community-based networks) were formed for all main river stretches(three of these are transboundary), through voluntary association of relevant local authorities, official bodies and other stakeholders (e.g. representatives of potentially affected industries, energy providers, local authority planning and waterway maintenance departments, etc.). Information and discussion fora were organised to encourage active involvement within these new partnerships, as well as within the two pre-existing River Management Partnerships. Public participation (including active involvement in the selection of measures) was in part organised through River or Flood Management Partnerships; the latter were supported by the International Support Centre for Flood Partnerships at the ICPMS offices in Trier, Germany. However, the bodies and private individuals could equally have been involved outside of these the Partnerships. The table below shows the mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders:

Table 11 Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders LU000 Regular exhibitions Establishment of advisory groups ✔ Involvement in drafting ✔ Workshops and technical meetings ✔ Formation of alliances ✔ Source: FRMP The newly formed Flood Management Partnerships were actively involved in the preparation of the FRMP and remain involved in its implementation and provided community-based advisory groups. By December 2015, 10 workshops on the FRMP had been held for Flood Management Partnerships, each with a specific theme and tasks/programme of work. As part of these workshop programmes, the shortcomings and action requirements were worked out, including proposals for measures. In addition, the list of measures proposed in these workshops was sent to all local authorities in flood risk areas, asking them to comment and if appropriate suggest further measures. Staff from the Regional Water Management Administration were available to advise the Partnerships and local authorities. 7.4 Effects of consultation The table below shows the effects of consultation: Table 12 Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders LU000 Changes to selection of measures ✔ Adjustment to specific measures ✔ Addition of new information Changes to the methodology used Commitment to further research Commitment to action in the next FRMP cycle Comments and results of the FHRM consultation were incorporated ✔ Source: FRMP The proposal/selection of measures was part of the active involvement of the public consultation, particularly through workshops organised for the Flood Management Partnerships, and consultation of local authorities in flood risk areas. The results of these workshops including proposed measures were largely incorporated in the FRMP. Following the second phase of public consultation in 2014/15, written comments on the draft FRMP were received from 59 local administrations, the Chamber of Agriculture, the River Basin Partnership of the Upper Alzette, the Partnership for the river Syr, and a small number of private individuals. Of the written submissions, 22 were positive without further comments, 40 were positive with comments, and five were negative. All comments were examined and incorporated into the revised FRMP 2015 where relevant. No further details are available. Comments received as a result of the initial consultation of the draft FHRMs in 2010/11 were also examined and incorporated into the final draft FHRMs which were made available to the public in 2014, together with the draft FRMP. For example, following public consultation and reference to updated data, some recalculations were performed on some of the maps, and localised adjustments were made in some APSFRs. In addition, the legend of the Flood Risk Maps was simplified. The maps were updated accordingly into those made available to the public in 2014. 7.5 Strategic Environmental Assessment The FRMP has undergone an SEA procedure, particularly to assess the effects on the WFD objectives (for details see section 4), however no further details are provided. 7.6 Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance The following good practices were identified: ·Overall responsibility for the implementation of both the Floods and the Water Framework Directives lies with the Administration for Water Management in the Ministry for Sustainable Development, but relevant Local Authorities, Flood Management Partnerships and other stakeholders also play a large part in flood risk management. ·The Flood Management Partnerships provided a mechanism for local stakeholder involvement in flood risk management, also promoting transboundary co-operation. ·The public consultation involved a wide range of stakeholders and consisted of (i) provision of information, (ii) active involvement in the preparation of the FRMP and selection of measures and continuing involvement in implementing measures, and (iii) formal hearings. ·The results of active involvement and wider consultation were largely incorporated into the FRMP, and included changes made in response to the public consultation.

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures

This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures reported by Luxembourg in the reporting sheets. These tables and charts were used for the preparation of section 4 on measures. Background & method This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs). The tables and charts below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the Member States and were used by the Member State assessor to complete the questions on the Flood measures. The data are extracted from the XMLs (reporting sheets) reported by Member States for each FRMP, and are split into the following sections: ·Measures overview –Tabulates the number of measures for each UoM; ·Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; ·Measures details: name & location – Location & geographic coverage; ·Measure details: authorities – Name of responsible authority & level of responsibility; ·Measure details: objectives – Objectives, Category of priority & Timetable; ·Measure details: progress – Progress of implementation & Progress description; ·Measure details: other – Other Community Acts. On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive), not all fields are mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields. Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers – for example, progress is measured via the categories set out in the Reporting Guidance. This means that producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort. For many fields, however, a free data format was used. For some Member States, this resulted in thousands of different answers, or answers given in the national language. In such situations, tables and charts were developed using the following steps: ·A first filter is done to identify how many different answers were given. If a high number of different answers are given, Member States assessors were asked to refer to the raw data when conducting the assessment, and this Annex does not reflect these observations. ·If a manageable number of answers are given, obvious categories are identified, and raw data sorted. ·Measures missing information may be assigned categories based on other fields (for example, if the level of Responsibility Authority is missing, the information may be obvious from the field “name of Responsible Authority”). ·Measures where obvious categories cannot be defined based on other available information (as in the example above on the name of the responsible authorities), are categorised as “no information”. Types of measures used in reporting The following table is used in the reporting on the types of measures. Each type of measures is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. Types of measures used in reporting

NO ACTION M11: No Action PREPAREDNESS M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning M42: Emergency response planning M43: Public Awareness M44: Other preparedness PREVENTION M21: Avoidance M22: Removal or relocation M23: Reduction M24: Other prevention RECOVERY & REVIEW M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery M52: Environmental recovery M53: Other recovery PROTECTION M31: Natural flood management M32: Flow regulation M33: Coastal and floodplain works M34: Surface Water Management M35: other protection OTHER MEASURES M61: Other measures

List of Annex A tables & figures Figure A1:Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect Figure A2: Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A5: Geographic coverage by measure aspect Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A6: Category of priority by measure aspect Figure A5: Visualisation of Table A7: Progress of implementation by measure aspect Table A1: Total number of measures Table A2: Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM Table A3: Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM Table A4: Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, including duplicates Table A5: Geographic coverage by measure aspect Table A6: Category of priority by measure aspect Table A7: Progress of implementation by measure aspect Measures overview Table A1Total number of measures

Number of individual measures 813 Number of individual measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 813 Number of aggregated measures 70 Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 70 Total number of measures 883 Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 883 Range of number of measures between UoMs, including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type (Min-Max) 0 - 883 Table A2:Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM Prevention Protection Prepared-ness Recovery & review Other Grand Total M21 M22 M23 M31 M32 M33 M34 M41 LU000 1 1 5 733 27 21 24 1 813 Grand Total 1 1 5 733 27 21 24 1 0 0 813 Note: Luxembourg reported information only for one UoM (the second UoM in Luxembourg does not contain APSFRs). Table A3:Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM Prevention Protection Preparedness Recovery & review Other Grand Total M21 M22 M23 M31 M32 M33 M34 M41 M42 M43 M51 M61 LU000 5 1 5 12 3 2 1 8 2 5 1 25 70 Grand Total 5 1 5 12 3 2 1 8 2 5 1 25 70 Note: Luxembourg reported information only for one UoM (the second UoM in Luxembourg does not contain APSFRs). Table A4:Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, including duplicates Prevention Total Protection Total Preparedness Total Recovery &review Total Other Total Grand Total Aggregate Individual Aggregate Individual Aggregate Individual Aggregate Aggregate LU000 11 7 18 18 805 823 15 1 16 1 1 25 25 883 Grand Total 11 7 18 18 805 823 15 1 16 1 1 25 25 883 Note: Luxembourg reported information only for one UoM (the second UoM in Luxembourg does not contain APSFRs). The information in Table A5 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: Figure A1:Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect Note: Luxembourg reported information only for one UoM (the second UoM in Luxembourg does not contain APSFRs). Figure A2: Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect Note: Luxembourg reported information only for one UoM (the second UoM in Luxembourg does not contain APSFRs).





Measure details: cost Member States were requested to report information on: ·Cost (optional field); ·Cost explanation (optional field). Luxembourg did not report any costs or cost explanations for the measures in the reporting sheets. Measure details: name & location Member States were requested to report information on: ·Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); ·Geographic coverage of the impact of measures (optional field). Location of measures Luxembourg provided information for the location of all the measures, however, this was an open question, and as such, a large number of different responses was given. It was thus not practical to aggregate the information. Geographic coverage Luxembourg provided information about the geographic coverage of the effects of all measures. The reported coverage concerned primarily different APSFRs as summarised in the following tables. Table A5: Geographic coverage by measure aspect HWRM RB_000 A01 RB_000 A02 RB_000 A03 RB_000 A04 RB_000 A05 RB_000 A06 RB_000 A07 RB_000 A08 RB_000 A09 RB_000 A10 RB_000 A11 RB_000 A12 RB_000 A13 RB_000 A14 RB_000 A15 RB_001 Grand Total Prevention 11 2 1 2 2 18 Protection 18 43 52 221 16 24 53 68 70 83 27 47 8 11 28 41 13 823 Preparedness 15 1 16 Recovery & review 1 1 Other 25 25 Grand Total 70 46 53 223 16 24 53 68 70 83 27 47 8 11 30 41 13 883 Notes: Luxembourg reported information for only one UoM (LU000). Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A6: Geographic coverage by measure aspect

Notes: Luxembourg reported information for only one UoM (LU000). Measure details: objectives Member States were requested to report information on: ·Objectives linked to measures (optional field, complementary to the summary provided in the textual part of the XML); ·Category of priority (Conditional, reporting on either ‘category of priority’ or ‘timetable’ is required); ·Timetable (Conditional, reporting on either ‘category of priority’ or ‘timetable’ is required). Objectives Luxembourg did not report any information about the objectives of the measures in the reporting sheets. Category of priority The following categories are used to classify the priority of the measures in the reporting sheet: ·Critical; ·Very high; ·High; ·Moderate; ·Low. Luxembourg reported the priority of all measures as ‘Very high’, although there are three levels of priority described in the FRMP (one to three and zero for measures already implemented). Annex 1 of the FRMP lists most measures as priority level 1, and some as zero. Table A6:Category of priority by measure aspect Very high Grand Total Prevention 18 18 Protection 823 823 Preparedness 16 16 Recovery & review 1 1 Other 25 25 Grand Total 883 883 Notes: Luxembourg reported information for only one UoM (LU000). Figure A4:Visualisation of Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect

Notes: Luxembourg reported information for only one UoM (LU000). Timetable Luxembourg did not report any information about the timetable of the measures in the reporting sheets. Measure details: authorities Member States were requested to report information on: ·Name of the responsible authority (optional if ‘level of responsibility’ is reported); ·Level of responsibility (optional if ‘name of the responsible authority’ is reported). Luxembourg did not provide any information about the responsible authorities or level of their responsibility for the measures in the reporting sheets, although individual measures are allocated in Annex 1, for example as national, or a specific municipality or partnership. Measure details: progress Member States were requested to report information on: ·Progress of implementation of measures (mandatory field) – this is a closed question whose responses are analysed below ·Progress description of the implementation of measures (optional field) – this is an open text question whose answers are not analysed here. The progress of implementation was reported as: ·COM (completed); ·OGC (ongoing construction);

·POG (progress ongoing); ·NS (not started). A full definition of these terms can be found at the end of this section. Table A7:Progress of implementation by measure aspect Completed Ongoing construction Progress ongoing Not started Grand Total Prevention 1 17 18 Protection 27 84 1 711 823 Preparedness 2 14 16 Recovery & review 1 1 Other 1 2 22 25 Grand Total 30 87 1 765 883 Notes: Luxembourg reported information for only one UoM (LU000). Figure A5: Visualisation of Table A8: Progress of implementation by measure aspect Notes: Luxembourg reported information for only one UoM (LU000). The categories describing the progress of measures are defined in the EU Reporting Guidance Document on the Floods Directive. For measures involving construction or building works (e.g. a waste water treatment plant, a fish pass, a river restoration project, etc.): ·Not started (NS) means the technical and/or administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have not started. ·Progress on-going (POG) means that administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have started but are not finalised. The simple inclusion in the RBMPs is not considered planning in this context. ·On-going construction (OGC) means the construction or building works have started but are not finalized. ·Completed (COM) means the works have been finalised and the facilities are operational (maybe only in testing period in case e.g. a waste water treatment plant). For measures involving advisory services (e.g. training for farmers): ·Not started (NS) means the advisory services are not yet operational and have not provided any advisory session yet. ·Progress on-going (POG) means the advisory services are operational and are being used. This is expected to be the situation for all multi- annual long/mid-term advisory services that are expected to be operational during the whole or most of RBMP cycle. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means an advisory service that has been implemented and has been finalised, i.e. is no longer operational. This is expected only for advisory services that are relatively short term or one-off, and which duration is time limited in relation to the whole RBMP cycle. For measures involving research, investigation or studies: ·Not started (NS) means the research, investigation or study has not started, i.e. contract has not been signed or there has not been any progress. ·Progress on-going (POG) means the research, investigation or study has been contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means the research, investigation or study has been finalised and has been delivered, i.e. the results or deliverables are available (report, model, etc.). For measures involving administrative acts (e.g. licenses, permits, regulations, instructions, etc.): ·Not started (NS) means the administrative file has not been opened and there has not been any administrative action as regards the measure. ·Progress on-going (POG) means an administrative file has been opened and at least a first administrative action has been taken (e.g. requirement to an operator to provide information to renew the licensing, request of a permit by an operator, internal consultation of draft regulations, etc.). If the measure involves more than one file, the opening of one would mean already “ongoing”. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license or permit has been issued; the regulation has been adopted, etc.). If the measure involves more than one administrative act, “completed” is achieved only when all of them have been concluded. Measure details: other Member States were requested to report information on: ·Other Community Act associated to the measures reported (optional field); ·Any other information reported (optional field). Luxembourg did not report any information for these fields in the reporting sheets. Annex B: Definitions of measure types Table B1 Types of flood risk management measures