EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 31 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Overview - Flood Risk Management Plans Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Contents Executive Summary 1. Introduction 1.1. Rationale for continued action at the EU level 2. Main elements of the Floods Directive 2.1. The objectives and key provisions of the Floods Directive 2.2. The European Commission’s 2015 implementation report 3. Approach to the Assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans Part A. Assessment of Member State Flood Risk Management Plans 4. Governance of Flood Risk Management 4.1. Administrative level for the preparation of FRMPs 4.2. Adoption and legal status of the FRMPs 4.3. Strategic Environmental Assessments 4.4. Overview of Member State reporting of the FRMPs 4.5. Links to previous plans 5. Public information and consultation 5.1. Information provision on the consultation process 5.2. Consultation mechanisms 5.3. Active involvement of stakeholder groups

5.4. Incorporating consultation results in the FRMPs 5.5. Summary of good practice and areas for further development 6. Integration of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and Flood Hazard Maps and Flood Risk Maps 6.1. Overview of the previous steps 6.2. Conclusions of the PFRAs 6.3. Conclusions from the FHRMs 6.4. Coordination with other Member States and third countries 6.5. Summary of good practice and areas for further development 7. Setting objectives for the management of flood risks 7.1. Overview 7.2. Specific and measurable objectives 7.3. Setting the objectives: coordination 7.4. Summary of good practices and areas for further development 8. Measures for the achievement of objectives 8.1. Measurable and specific flood risk management measures (including location) 8.2. Location 8.3. Linking objectives and measures 8.4. Prioritisation of the measures 8.5. Responsible authorities 8.6. Progress of implementation

8.7. Measures taken under other Community Acts 8.8. Inclusion of specific groups of measures 8.9. Monitoring progress in implementation 8.10. Financing of measures 8.11. Coordination with the WFD 8.12. Summary of good practice and areas for further development 9. Consideration of costs and benefits and use of CBA 9.1. Overview of the consideration of costs and benefits in FRMPs 9.2. Overview of the methodologies applied 9.3. Summary of good practice and areas for further development 10. Consideration of the likely impacts of climate change 10.1. Integration of climate change in the PFRA and FHRM stages 10.2. Addressing climate change in the FRMPs 10.3. Climate change adaptation measures 10.4. No-regret measures to address climate change 10.5. Summary of good practices and areas for further development Part B. International coordination within the framework of the Floods Directive 11. Overview of international cooperation for flood risk management in the EU 11.1. Main elements of the FD related to international issues 11.2. Types of international coordination

11.3. Overview of international cooperation and coordination frameworks 11.4. Conclusions from previous phases of the flood risk management cycle in transboundary RBs Recommendations for transboundary cooperation in the framework of the FD Annex 1 Member State FRMPs assessed Annex 2 Overview of measures by aspect Annex 3 List of measure aspects and types Annex 4 Map of iRBD for which an assessment was carried out Annex 5 Overview of international coordinating mechanisms Acronyms APSFR Area of Potential Significant Flood Risk CA Competent Authority CBA Cost-benefit analysis CIS Common Implementation Strategy of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive CIS-WGF CIS Working Group on Floods EEA European Environment Agency EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds EU European Union EUSF European Union Solidarity Fund FD Floods Directive (Directive 2007/60/EC) FHRM Flood Hazard and Risk Map FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan iFRMP international FRMP iRBD international River Basin District iUoM international Unit of Management NWRM Natural Water Retention Measures PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment RB River Basin RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment UCPM Union Civil Protection Mechanism UoM Unit of Management WFD Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) WISE Water Information System for Europe



Executive Summary Partly in response to the large floods along the Danube and Elbe rivers in the summer of 2002 and partly in response to mounting evidence that socioeconomic development and climate change increase the chances that floods in Europe could become more catastrophic and frequent, in November 2007 the Floods Directive (FD) entered into force. The purpose of the Directive is to establish a framework for the assessment and management of flood risks, aiming at reducing the adverse consequences for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity associated with floods. The Directive takes a three step cyclical approach to flood risk management by requiring Member States to (1) undertake, by December 2011, preliminary flood risk assessments (PFRA) leading to the identification of areas that are at significant risk of flooding, known as areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFR); (2) by December 2013, prepare flood hazard and risk maps (FHRM) showing how far floods might extend, the depth or level of water and the impacts there might be on human health, the economy, environment and cultural heritage and, finally, (3) prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMP). These Plans were to be published by December 2015 and reported by March 2016 to the European Commission. Some FRMPs however were reported with delay and for two Member States the length of the delay did not allow for the inclusion of any of their FRMPs in the Commission’s assessment, consequently these are not discussed in the present Overview. The Commission’s assessment draws on two main sources: (1) depending on the number of FRMPs established in each MS either on all FRMPs, or on a representative sample and (2) Member State reporting to the European Commission (covering all FRMPs). The assessment focuses on and summarises the progress made in the process of managing flood risk in 26 Member States. It also identifies areas for further development. It can be concluded that Member States made good efforts in the preparation of their first ever FRMPs under the FD, with solid results. Various challenges in connection to flood risk management have also been identified, which should be addressed, depending on their nature, during the 2nd cycle of implementation of the Directive (2016 to 2021) and in subsequent cycles. Indeed, whereas establishing and publishing the Plans is an obligation under the Directive, the envisaged function of the Plans should primarily be that of a management tool, employed for the reduction of potential adverse consequences from significant flooding. In this sense, the recommendations put forward in the EU overview and the individual Member State assessments aim at strengthening flood risk management in the EU on the basis of good practice as it emerges from the implementation of the FD by the Member States themselves. Governance and public participation In almost all Member States the FRMPs have been adopted at various administrative levels and through various acts. In almost all Member States the FRMPs underwent a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), either across the board or in at least some Units of Management (UoMs). In 20 of the Member States assessed, objectives for flood risk management were set at the national level or by adapting national level objectives to regional/local circumstances. National and municipal authorities were reported by 19 and 18 Member States respectively as responsible for the implementation of measures to achieve the set objectives. For the majority of measures more than one authority was reported. The Directive requires Member States to encourage the active involvement of interested parties in the production, review and updating of the FRMPs. All Member States used a variety of information channels for outreach to the public and stakeholders (most made draft FRMPs available via the internet, which was also the primary medium for the submission of written comments) and a broad range of stakeholders were involved in the preparation of the FRMPs, e.g. civil protection authorities were involved in 19 Member States in at least some of the UoMs assessed. Less information was found in the FRMPs, or Member State reporting, on how the effects of the consultation were taken into account; for ten Member States, information was not found for some or all UoMs assessed.





Integration of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment and the Flood Hazard and Risk Maps To ensure FRMPs are as integrated as possible and to provide for continuity between the three steps of the flood risk management cycle, the FD foresees that the FRMPs will include the conclusions of the PFRA and FHRM steps. Indeed, all except two Member States reported the conclusions of their PFRAs as well as the conclusions of the FHRMs in their FRMPs. The FRMPs assessed, along with Member State reporting, provide some information in nearly all Member States on how the FHRMs were used to prepare the Plans themselves. Detail on the choice of flooding sources included in the FRMPs were found in the FRMPs of few Member States, still, almost all Member States, save for four, provide at least some information about the sources of flooding considered in the FRMPs assessed. Setting of objectives According to the FD, Member States shall establish appropriate objectives for the management of flood risks. All MS set such objectives. In terms of number of objectives, some Member States set a few broad objectives, other Member States presented a larger number, often of more specific sub-objectives. An almost equal number of Member States (ten and nine respectively) explicitly set objectives for the reduction of the potential adverse consequences from flooding and for reducing the likelihood of flooding; the later objective however was on the whole represented less prominently in the FRMPs assessed than the former. Whereas the objectives in 12 Member States include at least some specific and measurable elements, the objectives in 14 Member States are neither specific nor measurable in terms of what, where and by when should be achieved. Concretely defining measures and clearly linking these measures to objectives could serve as an alternative to defining specific objectives, provided the measures are selected and designed in such way that their completion would result in achieving the objectives set. 11 of the Member States included in this assessment made a link between their objectives and the measures to achieve them; five did so only for some UoMs and 11 did not establish a clear link. Three Member States – and only for some of the UoMs – explained how the implementation of measures will lead to the achievement of objectives. Not all objectives being elaborated to a degree that would allow them to be monitored against progress and not all measures being clearly linked to the objectives they seek to achieve, these taken together may pose a challenge for the 2nd cycle when the MS will provide an assessment of the progress made towards the achievement of the objectives. Measures for the achievement of objectives FRMPs should include measures for achieving the objectives established by the Member States. All Member States provided a list of measures and summary information for each measure. The number of measures varies significantly across the Member States, ranging from few individual measures to thousands of measure groups. More than half of the Member States assessed provided elements in terms of what the measures are trying to achieve, where (and which area their effects will cover), how and by when. Around 40% of the measures are protection measures, 25% prevention measures, another 25% preparedness and the remaining 10% recovery measures. In some cases, Member States have indicated that further specificity concerning measures will be developed in separate plans. All MS reported on the prioritisation of their measures, either on a five point scale, or as a timetable. To illustrate, around 10% of the measures reported were of critical priority, 60% were of very high or high priority, 20% of moderate priority and the remainder of low priority. Many FRMPs provide at least some information on how progress achieved in the implementation of measures will be monitored, though in many cases with little detail. All Member States assessed indicated the progress achieved at the time of reporting in the implementation of measures. These being the 1st FRMPs, about half of the measures were reported as not started. Roughly two-thirds of the Member States provided information on the methods used for prioritising the measures. Specifically in terms of non-structural initiatives (i.e. measures not involving civil engineering structures), the FRMPs of all Member States assessed make reference to spatial planning and/or land use, however, the extent of information varies. All 26 Member States assessed include nature based solutions as measures (including Natural Water Retention Measures-NWRM to mitigate flooding) in some or all of their FRMPs, either as projects or as preparatory studies. Despite insurance not being mentioned in the FD, in more than half of the 26 Member States assessed at least some FRMPs related measures are foreseen, including awareness raising on insurance schemes. Financing of measures Estimates of the costs of flood measures were made available by about half of the Member States assessed, though in many cases this information does not cover all FRMPs or all measures. For the Member States that provided (mostly partial) cost estimates, the numbers vary: EUR 19 million in one case, EUR 2.8 billion in another. A number of FRMPs indicated that cost estimates would be reviewed during the implementation of the measures. In 23 of the 26 Member States, most of the FRMPs assessed identified funding sources, however, in many cases with only a generic reference, that is, identifying possible funding mechanisms rather than making budgetary commitments. For instance, in 14 Member States, the Cohesion Funds were indicated as a source. Use of cost and benefit analysis A majority of the Member States assessed, 19 of 26, have made some analysis of costs and benefits of their measures. Amongst the 19, fewer, 11 Member States out of the 26, used a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in all UoMs assessed. A further five of the 19 Member States indicated the use of CBA for some of their FRMPs. When looking at the 19 Member States where a CBA (or an alternative method) was indicated, more than one third – seven Member States – reported that it was used for all measures in at least some UoMs. Five Member States indicated that a CBA was only used for structural measures. Further, across the 19 Member States that applied some form of analysis of costs and benefits, twelve provided clear information of the methodology used. In nearly all these cases, a national approach was developed. Links between FRMPs and River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) The development of RBMPs under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and of FRMPs under the FD are elements of integrated river basin management. The two processes should therefore use the potential for synergies and mutual benefits. Although in nearly all Member States assessed, separate FRMPs and RBMPs were prepared (very often however by the same authority), 21 out of 26 Member States make explicit reference to coordination with the environmental objectives set out in Article 4 of the WFD in all or at least some UoMs. On the other hand, in over half of Member States, the objectives of the FD were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs, according to the reporting of RBMPs under the WFD. Consideration of the likely impacts of climate change

From the FRMPs assessed, 24 of the 26 Member States considered at least some aspects of climate change and ten provided strong evidence that climate change impacts were considered. 14 Member States discussed future climate change scenarios in their FRMPs. Among those which discussed climate scenarios, the time frame presented in the Plans varies. Scenarios for 2050 are seen in about half, and scenarios for 2100 are also cited in about half. Less than half of the FRMPs assessed refer to the national adaptation strategies prepared by Member States under the EU Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. In about a third of Member States all FRMPs assessed referred to such national strategies; in a further few Member States some, but not all FRMPs assessed, had such references. International coordination within the framework of the Floods Directive Article 8 of the FD calls for Member States to coordinate their flood risk management practices in transboundary River Basins (RBs), including with third countries, and, in solidarity, not to undertake measures that would increase the flood risk in neighbouring countries. Two large groups of RBs can be distinguished: (1) transboundary RBs where a formal international agreement and an international coordinating body exists, as well as an international FRMP (iFRMP) was produced; (2) transboundary RBs where at least one of these three elements is absent. It is clear that the presence of a coordinating body, ideally a river commission, provides a strong impetus to the process. Generally, for RBs benefiting from a river commission, permanent working groups have been set up, and in all cases the development of the iFRMP was done in consultation with the iRBMP. Common objectives for flood risk management were established at the international level and for almost all a limited number of joint coordinated measures were defined. Public consultation was performed and a joint communication strategy was put in place in some of the basins that have a river commission. Likewise, consideration of climate change is more developed there. The appreciation of the upstream and downstream effects, at the basin scale, of measures that are geographically not in the vicinity of national borders is an area with room for development.



1.Introduction While many Member States already had national policies to address floods, most of Europe’s River Basins (RBs) are shared by more than one country. Before the Floods Directive (FD) was put in place, European Union (EU) policy to tackle flooding mainly focused on emergency response and instruments that partially addressed or contributed to the management of flood risk. The Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) was developed in 2001 to facilitate the mobilization of support and assistance in the event of major emergencies, including floods. In addition, following the 2002 floods in central Europe, the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was created as a specific instrument for granting rapid financial assistance directly after a major disaster to help the affected areas to return to living conditions that are as normal as possible. Whereas these instruments can provide relief to affected populations, they are not flood-specific and do not address the root causes of floods, nor are focused on preventing damage from floods. Consequently, there was scope for targeted and concerted action at European level that would result in better management of flood risks; this realisation led to the introduction of the FD in 2007. This document provides an overview of the first Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) produced by EU Member States and reported to the European Commission under the FD. 26 Member States are discussed. The Plans operationally cover the period 2016-2021. Whereas establishing the Plans is a legal obligation under the Directive, the envisaged function of the Plans should primarily be that of a management tool, employed for the reduction of potential adverse consequences from significant flooding. In this sense, the recommendations put forward in the EU overview and the individual Member State assessments aim at strengthening flood risk management in the EU on the basis of good practice as it emerges from the implementation of the FD by the Member States themselves. The European Commission’s individual Member State assessment reports (published in parallel) provide relevant background detail to the present EU overview. Together they should support and improve the implementation of the FD. The present document and its annexes should therefore facilitate the identification of good practice, as well as the reflection on areas of flood risk management that require improvement, through further development, in subsequent cycles of implementation of the Directive. Next to the equivalent one for the Water Framework Directive (WFD), this document underpins the implementation report from the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of the EU foreseen in Articles 18 of the WFD and 16 of the FD. 1.1.Rationale for continued action at the EU level While floods are a natural phenomenon, human choices, historic and still widespread today, have a significant effect on their occurrence and impacts. Locating assets within floodplains or near the coast, the reduction of water-retaining surfaces, interventions to water courses or their surroundings and man-instigated climate change, all contribute to an increase in the likelihood and adverse impacts of flood events. Since some time already there is evidence that Europe is subjected to an increasing number of large, damaging floods. Figure 1 below shows that the number of large flood events over a 25-year period increased and it is clear from the recently prepared EU Overview of Risks that floods remain the most common risk for Europe: 27 out of 28 Member States included floods as a main risk in their national risk assessments submitted to the European Commission under the UCPM. Source: Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz, Iwona Pińskwar & G. Robert Brakenridge (2012): Large floods in Europe, 1985–2009, Hydrological Sciences Journal, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2012.745082 Estimates indicate that coastal and inland floods killed more than 2 000 people and affected 8.7 million in the period 1991-2015. Most noticeable were the catastrophic floods in the summer of 2002 in the Danube and Elbe RBs, but also the 2013 summer flooding in central and south east Europe. Economic losses caused by floods can be devastating, including damages to private housing, monuments, transport or energy infrastructure and various economic sectors. In addition to economic, social (including health) and cultural heritage damage, floods often have severe environmental consequences too, affecting terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, e.g. through pollution. Potential cascading effects of a flood event may include the loss of vital infrastructure, the outbreak of epidemic or epizootic events, damage to industrial facilities causing the release of chemical or radioactive substances. Clearly hence implementing the FD contributes also to the implementation of policies other than flood risk management, e.g. the WFD.

Next to socioeconomic change, human induced climate change may increase the scale and frequency of floods in many parts of Europe. The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission found that even a 2°C rise in global temperature is still expected to lead to a significant increase in floods and droughts in many regions of Europe. Source: Roudier, P., Andersson, J.C.M., Donnelly, C. et al. Climatic Change (2016): Projections of future floods and hydrological droughts in Europe under a +2°C global warming. 135: 341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1570-4. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-015-1570-4 Under the no-adaptation scenario (i.e. assuming continuation of the current protection against river floods up to a current 100-year event), EU damages from the combined effect of climate and socioeconomic changes are projected to rise from EUR 6.9 billion/year to EUR 20.4 billion/year by the 2020s, EUR 45.9 billion/year by the 2050s, and EUR 97.9 billion/year by the 2080s. Considering these numbers, the importance of collecting accurate and consistent disaster loss data cannot be overstressed. However, disaster loss data remains an area requiring improvement, EU Member States included. Therefore, one of the actions listed in the “RescEU” Communication is for Member States and the European Commission to promote a more systematic collection and dissemination of loss data. The European Commission, through its Joint Research Centre, has launched the Risk Data Hub (RDH), expected to be the point of reference for curated EU-wide risk data, either through hosting relevant datasets or through linking to national platforms. The RDH integrates, among other tools, the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS). Member States can also input their own disaster loss datasets. Floods are only one of the threats our societies are faced with next to other disaster risks (natural or man-made), the fight against crime and terrorism, border security. These threats involve issues such as chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, crisis management, resilience etc. A range of research, technological developments as well as capacity-building, training and education projects, are striving to support the implementation of these policies. However, the extent of the policy framework and the wide scope of supporting initiatives often lead to a lack of awareness about policies and/or project outputs by the “users”. In response to needs expressed by different actors for improving exchanges of information and build up synergies among different types of activities (research, capacity-building, education and training, a “Community of Users on Secure, Safe and Resilient Societies” was introduced by the European Commission in 2014 and has since become a recognized mechanism to exchange information both within the EU institutions and intergovernmental agencies and the many different actors involved in safety and security risk management. Worldwide, beside windstorms, floods are the most frequent cause of natural hazard losses: about a third of all reported events and a third of the economic losses resulting from natural catastrophes are attributable to floods. Disaster risk management aspects are underlined as critical to poverty reduction and enablers of sustainable development in the EU's consensus on development and contribute towards meeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Indeed, flooding is directly relevant to two at least SDG goals: No 11 and No 13 on Sustainable Cities and Communities and Climate Action respectively. Work at the international level on disaster risk management is under the Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction 2015-2030, adopted by United Nations (UN) Member States at the third UN world conference on disaster risk reduction in March 2015 and endorsed by the UN General Assembly. The European Commission launched an Action Plan in 2016 to support reaching the Sendai objectives and the FD is one of its contributing elements.



2.Main elements of the Floods Directive 2.1.The objectives and key provisions of the Floods Directive Given the clear need for a targeted and coordinated approach at EU level towards flood risk reduction, the FD was proposed as an instrument by the European Commission on 18 January 2006 and entered into force on 26 November 2007. The purpose of the Directive is to ‘…establish a framework for the assessment and management of flood risks, aiming at the reduction of the adverse consequences for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity associated with floods…’ (Article 1) After transposition into national law and the necessary governance arrangements, that principally consisted of identifying UoMs and Competent Authorities (CA), the Directive required Member States to make, by December 2011, preliminary assessments of flood risk (PFRA) leading to the identification of any areas that are at significant risk of flooding. By December 2013, the Member States were to have prepared FHRMs showing how far floods might extend, the depths or levels of floodwaters and the impacts that there might be on human health, the economy, environment and cultural heritage. The Directive also requires that the assessment of flood risk and associated mapping must be coordinated between the Member States sharing RBs that cross national boundaries. For the third major step in the risk management cycle, the Directive calls on Member States to prepare FRMPs, which were to be completed and published by December 2015. Building on the prior steps, the FRMPs should detail appropriate objectives and identify measures for achieving these objectives. The following table provides an overview of the risk management cycle as defined by the FD.



Subject Deadline for completion (1st cycle) Deadline for notification/reporting (following completion from the part of the MS) 2nd cycle implementation Main reference Transposition and notification to the Commission 26.11.2009 26.11.2009 - Article 17 Competent Authorities and Units of Management if different from WFD and notification to the Commission 26.05.2010 26.05.2010 3 months after any changes Article 3(2) (and Annex 1 WFD) Transitional measures (not relevant in the 2nd cycle) 22.12.2010 22.12.2010 - Article 13 Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment-PFRAs/APSFRs 22.12.2011 22.03.2012 22.03.19, every 6 years thereafter Articles 4 & 5, Article 15 Flood Hazard and Risk Maps-FHRMs 22.12.2013 22.03.2014 22.03.20, every 6 years thereafter Article 6, Article 15 Flood Risk Management Plans-FRMPs 22.12.2015 22.03.2016 22.03.22, every 6 years thereafter Article 7, Article 15 Commission’s first implementation report 22.12.2018 Every 6 years Article 16 Commission’s second implementation report 22.12.2024 Every 6 years Article 16

There are links between the purpose and approach to flood risk management prescribed by the FD and the achievement of water quality objectives under the WFD. The FD states in its preamble that the implementation of the two Directives should ‘…use the mutual potential for common synergies and benefits...’ (point 17 of the preamble). At the same time, Article 1 of the WFD says that the purpose of the Directive “…is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which: [inter alia] … (e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts”… The FD is in almost all Member States implemented at the level of the River Basin Districts (RBDs) designated under the WFD and the CA responsible for the WFD are generally also responsible for flood risk management under the FD (except where other UoM and CA are designated by Member States). The implementation cycles and reporting mechanisms of the two Directives are synchronized: the first set of FRMPs due in December 2015 should have been coordinated with the second RBMPs under the WFD (and possibly also integrated into), which were also due in December 2015. The public information and consultation mechanisms of the WFD can furthermore be utilised. Measures can contribute to both Directives’ ends. From a design and impact point of view, NWRM are an example of measures that can contribute simultaneously to the achievement of objectives under the WFD and the FD by strengthening and preserving the natural retention and storage capacity of aquifers, soils and ecosystems. At the same time, plans for new flood protection infrastructure need to be assessed in terms of potential impacts on the achievement of good status under the WFD. 2.2.The European Commission’s 2015 implementation report In accordance with Article 18(4) of the WFD the European Commission published in 2015 an interim report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of the WFD, which also discussed the FD and included an overview of the first steps in its implementation. This report found that most Member States had developed new preliminary flood risk assessments, while few used existing assessments or relied on a combination of new and existing ones. Criteria for defining significant floods and methods for quantifying impacts were diverse across Member States and, in some cases, not systematically specified. Only one third of Member States explicitly considered climate and long-term socio-economic changes in their assessment of flood risk at the start of the decade. Despite these gaps, the report recognised that for the first time, all Member States acted together under the same policy framework to prevent or reduce social, economic and environmental damage from flood risk. The flood hazard maps and flood risk maps produced are a tool for decision makers and authorities to decide on, visualise, communicate (inter alia to the public) and implement measures aimed at reducing flood risks in an effective and sustainable way for water and the society. In addition, the report indicated that the FD has served as a strong incentive for the Member States to focus on prevention and awareness actions for flood risk management, in addition to protection measures. 2.3 The Common Implementation Strategy Implementation of the WFD and the FD has been supported since May 2001 by informal co-operation under the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS), led by Water Directors of Member States and the European Commission, with participation from relevant stakeholders. The CIS has successfully delivered thirty-six guidance documents; served as a valuable platform for exchange of experience and best practice on implementation among Member States, but also for exploring common issues of concern and joint responses. All documents produced under the CIS are made public on CIRCABC, a collaborative platform. Within the CIS, it is the Working Group on Floods (CIS-WG F) that primarily deals with issues pertaining to the implementation of the FD.

3.Approach to the Assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans After each of the two main steps of the flood risk management cycle defined by the FD, the European Commission produced assessments of the Member States’ PFRAs and FHRMs. The present document bases itself on the assessment of the third and final step of the flood risk management cycle, the FRMPs. The document reflects firstly an assessment of the national (or sub-national) FRMPs prepared by Member States (in Part A of this document) and secondly, an assessment of international cooperation among Member States and with third countries in International River Basin Districts (iRBDs)/international Units of Management-iUoMs (in Part B of this document). The assessment of Member States FRMPs drew on mainly two sources: (1) Member State reporting to the European Commission under the FD (covering all FRMPs) and (2) depending on the number of FRMPs established in each MS either on all FRMPs, or on a representative sample. Member States were requested to report summaries of the key elements of their FRMPs. They were for example requested to report on measures taken under their FRMPs, thereby providing data including the location, costs, priority, responsible for the implementation authorities. The overview in Part A of this document is based on the Member States reports. As two Member States had not reported their FRMPs at the time of the assessment, the assessment of FRMPs is based on 26 Member States. It should be noted that up to five FRMPs were assessed in each Member State. The FRMPs for assessment were chosen based on several criteria: first, to capture the variety of methods used (for example in Member States with a decentralised structure where regions or localities followed different approaches); second, to capture different types of flood sources; and third, to include UoMs that are part of larger transboundary units. Annex 1 provides the list of FRMPs assessed. All chapters of Part A on national FRMPs indicate noteworthy good practices and areas for further development for all Member States (with the exception of the chapter on governance). Further, this overview highlights in boxes throughout the document a range of good practice examples collectively covering all Member States: These examples are intended to be illustrative and, owing to the diversity of flood risk Member States are faced with, the examples may or may not serve as good practice suitable for replication elsewhere. For further information and to gain a better appreciation of the context, the individual Member State assessment reports should be visited. The assessment for international coordination under the FD (Part B) drew on Member States reporting, together with national FRMPs as well as on international FRMPs (iFRMP) for those iRBD where iFRMPs were prepared (for example the Danube or the Rhine basins). The assessment covered a total of 27 international basins, including those with lower levels of cooperation, where no iFRMP was prepared.



Part A. Assessment of Member State Flood Risk Management Plans

4.Governance of Flood Risk Management This chapter covers several issues related to the governance of flood risk management and of FRMPs. It firstly provides an overview of the number of UoMs and Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk (APSFRs) designated by Member States and then considers the administrative level (local, regional or national) at which the Plans were prepared. The chapter then provides information on the level that the Plans were adopted at and discusses their legal status. The following section reviews the use of SEA procedures. The chapter proceeds to present an overview of Member States reporting of the FRMPs, and finally it considers links between the FRMPs and flood management plans that preceded the introduction of the FD. 4.1.Administrative level for the preparation of FRMPs Member States have designated a total of 209 UoMs for the implementation of the FD. Within these UoMs, Member States identified 7.906 APSFRs (the total as reported for the FRMP assessment). The following table shows the number of UoMs and APSFRs reported per Member State. APSFRs were first reported at the PFRA stage; some Member States updated their numbers later during the risk management cycle, which for some coincided with reporting their FHRMs or FRMPs. A 4% increase in the number of APSFRs took place between 2011 and 2015 (see Table 2 below). In the majority of the Member States the UoMs correspond to the RBDs under the WFD. Italy is one exception as it follows the water governance scheme in place before the introduction of the WFD and consequently its UoMs cover different types of basins (national, interregional and regional basins): Italy has designated 47 UoMs but only 8 RBDs. Romania is another case, with 12 UoMs but only one RBD. MS UoMs APSFRs (as reported at FRMP stage, 2015) APSFRs (as reported at PFRA stage, 2011) AT 3 391 391 BE 7 BG 4 116 116 CY 1 19 19 CZ 3 269 269 DE 10 841 809 DK 4 10 10 EE 3 20 27 ES 25 1 306 1 229 FI 8 21 21 FR 14 122 146 HR 2 2 976 2 976 HU 1 2 2 IT 47 LT 4 129 129 LU 2 15 15 LV 4 25 25 MT 1 4 NL 4 PL 10 268 268 PT 10 54 RO 12 399 399 SE 10 18 18 SI 2 61 61 SK 2 559 383 UK 16 281 281 Total 209 7 906 7 594 Sources: Member States reporting to WISE. European Commission, European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on PFRA and Identification of Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk: Final report, Figure 9 (prepared by WRc and partners), September 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/EU%20PFRA%20Overview%20Report.pdf Note: the table does not include either Greece (124 APSFRs reported at the PFRA stage), nor the Republic of Ireland (305 APSFRs), as these two Member States did not report in time for the FRMP assessment. According to the Directive, Member States should prepare one FRMP for each RBD or UoM that contain APSFRs, or a set of FRMPs coordinated at the level of the RBD (Article 8.1). All FRMPs identify the level at which the planned, ongoing or executed measures take place. Member States have taken a variety of different approaches to the preparation of their FRMPs (see Table 3 below). National Regional UoM/RBD Sub-basin or Municipal AT 1 BE 7 BG 4 CY 1 CZ 3 (see Notes) DE 40 5 DK 2 20 (municipal) EE 3 ES 17 FI 16 (APSFRs) FR 14 HR 1 HU 1 IT ~30 LT 1 LU 1 LV 4 NL 4 MT 1 PL 3 PT 9 RO 1 11 SE 18 (APSFR) SI 1 SK 2 9 (sub-basin) UK 13 23 (sub-basin) Sources: Member States reporting and FRMPs. Notes: The Czech Republic prepared both UoM-level and sub-basin FRMPs (the latter were not reported to WISE, nor assessed). Italy prepared FRMPs at UoM level and at the level of RBDs that comprise several UoMs; the estimate is made based on the links to FRMPs reported to WISE at the time of the assessment. Spain had reported 17 out of 25 FRMPs at the time of assessment. Half of Member States assessed – 13 out of 26 – prepared an FRMP for each UoM where APSFRs were identified. Six Member States, however, prepared a single FRMP at national level covering all UoMs, and a further five Member States chose to develop Plans at a lower level, generally for sub-basins within an UoM. In Slovakia, the FRMPs prepared at the UoM level include sub-plans for sub-basins of the UoM. Germany and Italy followed a mixed approach where some Plans are prepared at regional/Laender level and others at UoM level; in Denmark municipalities elaborated municipal FRMPs which were summarised in FRMPs at UoM level. In Finland and Sweden, FRMPs were prepared for individual APSFRs. In England and Northern Ireland, most plans are prepared at the UoM level, but in Scotland and Wales they are prepared at a lower level, for 14 Local Districts (Scotland) and eight FRMPs at the level of the Lead Local Flood Authorities (Wales). A few Member States prepared FRMPs also for UoMs without APSFRs. One example is Estonia: an FRMP was developed for the Koiva UoM (EE3). Even though no APSFRs had been identified, national legislation called for an FRMP for each UoM, and the Koiva FRMP aims to avoid risks from potential floods in the future, with measures to improve the natural water retention capacities of the landscape (potentially also serving as a baseline for future action). In the United Kingdom as well, FRMPs were prepared for several UoMs such as Northumbria (UK03) that did not contain APSFRs. Austria’s FRMP, prepared at national level, covers all three UoMs including the Elbe (AT5000), which does not contain APSFRs, though no measures are planned there.

In total, as shown in Table3, over 260 FRMPs were prepared across the 26 Member States. 4.2.Adoption and legal status of the FRMPs The European Commission’s 2012 assessment of the first RBMPs noted that their legal status varied across Member States. Key factors in determining legal status included the role of the Plans in the national hierarchy of policy and legal acts, the adopting authority and the procedure for adoption. The legal ‘effect’ of the plans on other administrative acts, such as permits and spatial planning instruments, would also vary. A similar analysis was carried out for the 1st FRMPs and is detailed below. For nearly all Member States, information was available, either in the FRMPs or from other sources, on the legal status of the Plans (see Table 4 ). In at least eleven Member States, the FRMPs were approved at the level of national government. In Hungary, for example, the government adopted the national FRMP in March 2016 (via Decree 1146/2016). In five Member States, the FRMPs were adopted by the Ministry for Environment: this was for instance the case in Latvia, where the Minister of Environmental Protection and Regional Development adopted the FRMP for the Daugava UoM (LVDUBA) in November 2015 and the other three FRMPs the following month. In Finland, the Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, responsible for water management, approved the FRMPs in December 2015. In the Netherlands, the FRMPs are part of the National Water Plan (2016-2021), which was approved by the (at that time) Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment and the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Authorities at UoM/RBD level approved the Plans in France and Italy. In mainland France, the basin prefects approved the Plans. In Italy, the RBD authorities adopted the FRMPs in March 2016 and the national government followed in February 2017. In Belgium, the FRMPs were approved by the three regions (Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia); in Portugal, while the plans for mainland UoMs were approved at national level, those for the autonomous regions of Azores and Madeira were approved by the regional governments. In Denmark, plans were prepared at municipal level and approved by municipal councils. Two overarching FRMPs were prepared in Denmark, however, these were not approved at national government level. National Government Ministry of Environment Other Ministry UoM/ RBD Regions Local Date of adoption AT  March 2016 BE  Brussels: January 2017 Flanders: December 2015 Wallonia: March 2016 BG  December 2016 CY  December 2016 CZ  December 2015 DE   ** DK  ** EE  January 2016 ES  January and April 2016; March 2018 ** FI  December 2015 FR  Late 2015 ** HR  July 2016 HU  March 2016 IT   RBD authorities: March 2016; Council of Ministers: February 2017 LT * LU  March 2018 LV  November and December 2015 ** MT  February 2016 NL   December 2015 PL  October, November and December 2016 ** PT   September and October 2016, 27 October 2017 ** RO  December 2016 SE  December 2015 SI  July 2017 SK  December 2015 UK December 2015 for NI, Scotland and Wales; March 2016 for England Sources: Member State reporting, FRMPs. Notes: In Finland, the ‘other ministry’ refers to the Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, responsible for water management. In the Netherlands, the ‘other ministry’ is the Ministry of Economic Affairs * In Lithuania, the Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023 was approved by the Government in February 2017 and the Action Plan of Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023 by the Minister of Environment and Minister of Agriculture in May 2017: Both documents refer to and are partly based on the national FRMP. ** In Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Latvia and Portugal, the date of adoption varies across the FRMPs. For almost all the Member States the FRMPs have been officially adopted, giving them legal status. A few of the FRMPs themselves provide information on their legal weight (see the box below for France). Box 1 - The legal effect of the FRMPs In France, the FRMP for the Rhône-Méditerranée UoM (FRD) contains a section on the legal weight of the plan, indicating that with the FRMP’s approval, other plans and administrative documents need to be updated within three years to be compatible with its provisions. This section refers to plans at several levels, including the Schémas de cohérence territoriale (SCoTs, Schemas for territorial coherence), plans covering several municipalities, and to the plans locals d’urbanisme (PLUs) and plans locals d’urbanisme intercommunal (PLUIs), the main local planning documents. The FRMP also delineates the scope of the FRMP compared to the RBMP for the Rhône-Méditerranée. 4.3.Strategic Environmental Assessments An SEA is mandatory for plans/programmes which: are prepared for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste/ water management, telecommunications, tourism, town & country planning or land use and which set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive, or have been determined to require an assessment under the Habitats Directive.

In 23 of the 26 Member States, it is clear that the FRMPs underwent an SEA in at least some UoMs. For example, an SEA is carried out for only some Swedish and French FRMPs. In Malta, on the other hand, an SEA screening was carried out, and on the basis of this, there was no full SEA undertaken on the Maltese FRMP. No information was found on SEA procedures in Denmark and Estonia; however, this may reflect an omission to provide information rather than the lack of an SEA procedure. The FRMPs in several Member States provide information on the SEA procedure. For example, in Bulgaria, draft a 4.4.Overview of Member State reporting of the FRMPs MS were required to report to the European Commission on their first FRMPs by 22 March 2016. Half of EU’s 28 Member States reported at least some of the FRMPs by that date (see Table 5 below). By July 2017, all Member States had reported except for Ireland, which reported in May 2018, and Greece, which published the FRMPs in the official gazette in July 2018 and reported in October/November 2018. Reporting to WISE Updates AT March 2016 BE March 2016 (February 2017 for one UoM) July 2016 BG December 2016 HR September 2016 CY September 2016 (January 2017 for XML) CZ March 2016 (Sept 2017 national FRMP) DK March 2016 EE May 2016 January 2018 (one UoM) FI March 2016 April 2017 FR March 2016 September 217 DE March 2016 June 2016 EL October/November 2018 - HU March 2016 IE May 2018 IT March 2016 LV March 2016 (June 2016 FRMPs) August 2016 LT July 2017 LU October 2016 (June 2017 XML) MT October 2016 (Dec 2017 XML) NL March 2016 PL October 2016 December 2016 PT Oct 2016 (March 2017 XML) June 2017 RO February 2017 SK March 2016 SI August 2017 ES February-April 2016 (March-April 2018 for one UoM) SE March 2016 May 2017 UK March 2016 Source: Member State reporting. 4.5.Links to previous plans As noted earlier, some Member States have had long-standing policies to address flood risks. In these Member States, the FRMPs follow and build on previous plans to address flood risks. In Italy, for example, the regions and some RBs had prepared Plans for Hydrogeological Status (Piani di Assetto Idrogeologico, PAIs) to address hydrogeological risks including different types of flooding as well as landslides related to heavy rainfall. Italy used information from these earlier plans instead of undertaking a PFRA in the first cycle. In the Netherlands, well-known for its efforts to address flood risks from the sea, the FRMPs follow a set of major government initiatives taken over the previous decade (see the box below). The Dutch FRMPs include measures taken under other plans and programmes. This is the case for FRMPs in a few other countries as well: for example, in Croatia, the FRMP’s infrastructure measures are based on a prior water infrastructure plan. Member States may decide – under Article 13(3) of the FD – to make use of earlier FRMPs (i.e. finalised before December 2010) instead of preparing 1st cycle FRMPs, provided that their content is equivalent to the requirements of Article 7 of the Directive. The assessment found application of Article 13(3) in only one Member State, for a small share of the German FRMPs. Box 2 - Previous flood risk initiatives In the Netherlands, the four FRMPs refer to and build on recent and ongoing national programmes and legislation for flood risk management. These include the 2007 Room for the River Programme (Ruimte voor de Rivier) to restore flood plains and other natural features as measures against flooding, now nearing completion. Another key initiative has been the Delta Programme (first launched in 2008 and most recently updated in 2017) to protect against flooding and secure freshwater resources in the face of expected climate change impacts. Related to the Delta Programme, the Netherlands took several Delta Decisions (proposed in 2014 and adopted in the 2015 Delta Programme): the Decision for Water Safety, for example, states that by 2050, dykes and dunes should provide sufficient protection so that the risk of fatalities is no higher than 1 in 100,000 citizens per year.



5.Public information and consultation According to Article 1 of the 1998 Aarhus Convention “In order to contribute to the protection of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, each Party shall guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters…” Directive 2003/35/EC is providing for public participation in respect to the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment with the objective to contribute to the implementation of the obligations arising under the Århus Convention. Provisions for public participation in environmental decision-making are to be found in a number of other environmental Directives, including the WFD and the FD. Article 10(1) of the FD states that Member States shall make available to the public the FRMPs – and this was also the case for the previous phases in the flood risk management cycle, i.e. the preparation of the PFRAs and the FHRMs. Moreover, the active involvement of interested parties in the production, review and updating of the FRMPs should be encouraged (Article 10(2)). This chapter reviews the information available in the Member States reporting and the FRMPs assessed on information provision, public consultation and active stakeholder involvement. Three distinct facets are discussed: (1) the provision of information to the public and stakeholders on the consultation itself, and the provision of FRMPs and related documents; 2) the actual public consultation and consultation methods; and (3) the active involvement of stakeholders. Effective public participation should result in adaptations which improve the evidence and assumptions in the FRMPs, refine the scope of the measures to be taken and increase stakeholders’ ownership of the plans and commitment to their implementation. This aspect is explored by looking at how the plans were reported to have changed as a result of the consultation. 5.1.Information provision on the consultation process

All of the Member States covered in the assessment have used a variety of information channels for communicating with the public and stakeholders on the FRMPs. Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs . The FRMPs for Austria, Germany and Slovakia explicitly refer to a strategic approach, starting at the initial phase of development of the FRMP, to provide information about the content and the preparation process of the Plans (see the box below on Austria). The communication and information channel that was used the most was the internet, followed by stakeholder meetings and the use of media such as newspapers, TV and radio (see Figure 3 above). With regard to the internet, several Member States set up dedicated websites on floods: one example is Poland, where the website dedicated to flood protection and to the Plans under development was updated on an ongoing basis. Surveys and social media platforms were used least. Romania reported the use of a high number of information channels, followed by Austria, Belgium, Poland and Portugal, including the internet, public displays, printed thematic brochures and (online) dialogue platforms. An innovative approach was used in Poland: a film trailer shown in cinemas was used to reach out to the general public. Box 3 - Public information and consultation In Austria, a broad public information and consultation strategy was followed for the consultation on the FRMP. Many public relations channels and several dialogue platforms for topics related to water management were used, such as the Round Table on Water and an internet platform called "Flussdialog"/River Dialogue, which targeted many different stakeholders as well as the general population. In terms of providing the documents for consultation, 24 of the 26 Member States assessed made all draft FRMPs available via the internet, and two more did so in some of the UoMs assessed (see Figure 4 below). The second most common method was making paper copies available in municipal buildings, this was done by less than half of the Member States. Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs. Relatively few Member States provided documents at the offices of competent authorities or regular exhibitions, and few provided them via direct mailing. (Croatian authorities specifically noted that printed versions were not distributed due to the large size of the document.) Direct mailing was used in Poland for all FRMPs; Poland was the Member States which used the most channels, six, to provide documents. In contrast, several Member States – including Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Lithuania and Latvia – chose to work with downloadable documents only. A few Member States also indicated that information on the FRMPs was provided also once they were completed: Slovenia is one example (see the box below). Box 4 - Informing the public about the final FRMP After the publication of the final FRMP, Slovenia organised workshops with local inhabitants in flood-risk areas and with local water professionals. In December 2015, there were four workshops for the basins of Savinja river (at Ljubno ob Savinji), Mura and Drava rivers (at Murska Sobota), Sava river (at Ljubljana) and Soča and Adriatic rivers (at Nova Gorica) that explained the FRMP. In 2017, a public discussion and exhibition was held, covering both UoMs. 5.2.Consultation mechanisms In all Member States, the internet was a crucial mechanism for the consultation process itself (see Figure 5 below). It was mainly used to submit written comments. A high number of Member States also used workshops and conferences to gather feedback on the consultation. Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

On average, Member States use four different channels to carry out the consultation. The most popular channels to carry out the consultation were the internet, direct invitations and workshops and conferences. Bulgaria and Estonia used the highest number of channels, six each. In Poland, multiple events were held during the six-month FRMP consultation, including conferences, focus meetings, Water Forum and expert meetings. Written comments could also be submitted by mail or email. After this period, further consultations were held as part of the SEA procedure for the plans. Discussions on social media platforms were an innovative method used by Finland. A discussion forum was also set up on the public consultation page for the Kemijoki catchment FRMP. Three Member States used surveys of the public: this was seen, for example, in Bulgaria, where members of the public were asked about the main issues to be addressed in the FRMP. In Austria, over 11 000 individuals participated via an online questionnaire (the report does not say, however, if the questionnaire only looked at the FD or whether it also referred to the WFD, as both Directives are covered in the “Flussdialog” web portal). Latvia used a survey of local governments (rather than the public) as an early input to the FRMPs: the survey included questions about flood risks in the municipality, currently planned measures and possible non-traditional solutions to reduce flood risks. 5.3.Active involvement of stakeholder groups In the majority of Member States, a broad range of stakeholders were actively involved in the preparation of the FRMPs (see Figure 6 ). The leading groups were local and regional authorities, involved in all the Member States for which information is available, and civil protection authorities. The latter were consulted for all FRMPs assessed in 14 of the 26 Member States – and in 19 Member States for at least some UoMs. Flood warning/defence authorities and water supply and sanitation companies were actively involved in more than half of the Member States. Consumer groups and academic and research institutions were actively involved in very few Member States, according to the information available. Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs. Based on the information provided, on average stakeholders from about eight sectors were actively involved for all or part of the UoMs. Portugal and Germany were the Member States actively involving the widest variety of stakeholder groups (14) for its various UoMs, followed by Bulgaria and Hungary (each with 13). No information was found in the documents uploaded to WISE, however, about the stakeholder groups consulted in the development of the FRMPs for two Member States: Lithuania and Slovenia. Box 5 - Active involvement of stakeholder groups A broad range of stakeholder groups were actively involved in the mainland Portuguese FRMPs assessed. For the FRMPs for the Douro (PTRH3) and Vouga, Mondego and Lis (PTRH4A) UoMs for example, these stakeholders included: government bodies at different levels and for different sectors, economic interests and civil society associations. For the Douro, solid waste management companies and insurance companies were also mentioned. In several Member States, the stakeholders involved varied among FRMPs: this was the case for Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. For example, in Denmark, where the plans were prepared at municipal level, stakeholders were involved depending on their relevance for and interest in local flood issues. Nonetheless, most of the municipalities in Denmark involved a range of actors from public agencies and the private sector. MS used a wide variety of mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders (see Figure 7 below). The most common were the establishment of advisory groups, workshops, technical meetings, seminars or conferences and involving stakeholders in drafting the FRMPs. Interactive online tools, information events, formation of alliances and regular exhibitions were the mechanisms used least frequently. A common mechanism, used in about half of all Member States, was the establishment of multi-stakeholder advisory groups. Luxembourg, for example, created “Flood Management Partnerships” as a mechanism for local stakeholder involvement in flood risk management. In Bulgaria, active involvement included stakeholder meetings at regional and national levels and meetings of the Basin Councils: all four UoMs have Basin Councils (required by national law) that bring together stakeholders. These Councils provided feedback during the preparation of the FRMPs. In Poland, steering committees were created at water region and RB levels (both below UoM level). In Estonia, drafts of the FRMP were submitted for review and approval by the national Commission for RB Management, which brings together government bodies, national experts and water service companies. In one UoM in Portugal, an Advisory Committee with 16 representatives of different public, private and civil society bodies was formed to monitor the development of the FRMP. Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs.

Latvian Environmental Geology and Meteorology Centre In Finland, all the FRMPs assessed had a flood group made up of representatives of stakeholders that was directly involved in drafting the FRMP. Stakeholders outside the flood groups were able to contribute to the FRMP through specially-organised workshops. Workshops and conferences were a mechanism used in 12 Member States. In Estonia, for instance, a total of 25 meetings and workshops were held with interested parties. Stakeholder meetings to discuss the draft FRMPs were organised at regional, UoM/RBD and national levels. 5.4.Incorporating consultation results in the FRMPs With regard to the effects of the consultation, for about a third of the Member States assessed, no information was found in the FRMPs or Member States reporting on how the results of the consultation had been taken into account. Where information was found, this often indicated that adjustments had been made to specific measures which had already been selected (12 Member States), and that new information had been added to the FRMPs (9 Member States). In nine Member States, changes were made to the actual selection of measures (see Figure 8 ). Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs. Changes to the methodology used as a result of the consultation were reported by Finland as a result for one of its UoMs and by Croatia for its FRMP (which covers both of that Member States’ UoMs). In Luxembourg, the FRMP provides extensive information on how consultation results were considered (see box below). Box 7 - The effects of consultation on FRMPs In Luxembourg, the proposal and selection of measures was part of the active involvement process, particularly through workshops organised for the Flood Management Partnerships, and consultation of local authorities in flood risk areas. The measures proposed from these workshops were largely incorporated in the FRMP. Comments received as a result of the initial consultation on the draft FHRMs in 2010/11 were also examined and incorporated into the final draft FHRMs which were made available to the public in 2014, together with the draft FRMP. For example, following public consultation and reference to updated data, some recalculations were performed on some of the maps, and localised adjustments were made in some APSFRs. In addition, the legend of the Flood Risk Maps was simplified. In four Member States, the specific impacts of the consultation are not clear (Spain, France, Lithuania, and the Netherlands). In some Member States, FRMP consultations were carried out in conjunction with consultations with other matters, for example the RBMP. The Maltese authorities, for example, combined flood management consultations with a number of other water-related topics. Eventually, the Maltese stakeholders attending discussions were more concerned on issues such as water scarcity, which subsequently became the main emphasis of stakeholders. For ten Member States, information was not found for some or all UoMs assessed. In Finland, three out of five FRMPs assessed included information on the effects of consultation on the plans. In the United Kingdom, the only UoM found that provided a summary of the changes made as a result of the consultation response was the Neagh Bann in Northern Ireland. For Italy, while some information on the consultation responses was found on websites, there was no systematic overview

5.5.Summary of good practice and areas for further development As noted in section 4, the assessment found that all Member States engaged in noteworthy practices; similarly areas for further development were identified in all. The following paragraphs summarise, based on the Member States reports and the FRMPs assessed, the good practices and areas for further development identified in involving stakeholders in the drafting process for FRMPs. 5.5.1 Good practice Many Member States reports and FRMPs underline the efforts made to organise broad stakeholder consultations at various stages of the development of the FRMPs and at various levels of influence or competence. Several highlight a strategic approach and an emphasis on broad public participation. Reference was made to the use of coordination commissions, partnerships, consultative councils or working groups to streamline the process between national, regional and local authorities. Workshops, information fora and technical meetings were organised to actively involve and engage stakeholders. When it comes to informing the general public, some Member States created dedicated websites to provide information on the consultations and publish surveys and summary reports. This facilitates access to information by stakeholders and members of the public with different levels of technical expertise. Including feedback on the results of consultations in (annexes to) the FRMPs was also practiced by several Member States, showing an increased awareness of the importance of transparency. In one case, a workshop was organised to provide feedback to participants on how their input had been used, in a more proactive approach. Information from the public has been used in the different planning and development phases of the FRMPs. This shows greater willingness on the part of Member States to take account of the concerns and suggestions of stakeholders and members of the public. Some Member States are also linking more streamlined participation with integration across different levels of governance (local, regional, national, transnational) and different objectives (water quality, flood management, marine). This is likely to contribute to more efficient planning and greater stakeholder buy-in. 5.5.1.Areas for further development Although broad public information and consultation campaigns were set up by the Member States, the concrete effects of these activities and the way in which the consultation activities have influenced the final FRMP, are in many instances not summarised in the FRMP itself. Lack of information on the effectiveness of the participation methods used, for example in terms of the number of people involved, the input received and how the input was used should as well be addressed in the 2nd cycle. Better stakeholder analysis and greater transparency about the stakeholders who have participated in the planning process would be likely to encourage greater efforts from the part of the stakeholder groups who are currently not being brought round the table to become partners. It may be the case, particularly in Member States where a strong public participation culture has still to be developed, that stakeholders and members of the public only demonstrated a low level of interest, despite the invitation to participate. In these cases, apart from continuing to foster a culture of public participation across the spectrum, it may be worthwhile to measure the success of the channels of communication used, or the messages passed and, if these were low, to consider alternatives. The duration of public consultation varied between Member States (and for the United Kingdom, also between FRMPs). On this basis, the following recommendations can be made for the preparation of the second FRMPs: Information on public and stakeholder involvement should be provided more systematically in the second FRMPs. To ensure greater coordination with the public consultation for the RBMPs – and to ensure adequate time is provided to the public to respond, in the next cycle Member States should consider providing the same, or at least parallel periods for the consultation of the FRMPs and the RBMPs.



6. Integration of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and Flood Hazard Maps and Flood Risk Maps The FRMPs are based on the prior work carried out by Member States: the PFRAs and FHRMs. These three steps together form part of a chain, as the FHRMs are to be prepared for the APSFRs identified as a conclusion to the PFRA stage, and the plans are to be established “on the basis of” the FHRMs (Article 7 of the FD). The conclusions of these previous steps should be integrated in the FRMPs (in accordance with the Annex of the FD).

6.1.Overview of the previous steps MS were to complete their PFRAs by 22 December 2011 (Article 4 of the FD) and then prepare their FHRMs by 22 December 2013 (Article 6). The results of these two prior steps were made public by the European Commission in 2015. Member States had three months to report their PFRAs and FHRMs after they were completed. Most countries were covered by the 2015 European Commission assessments. Exceptions were: Greece (which was late with the reporting of both the PFRAs and the FHRMs, now reported); Bulgaria (which was late with the reporting of the FHRMs, now reported); and Croatia, Malta and Portugal, which were late in concluding their reporting. 6.1.1.Assessment of the previous steps Overall, the assessment of the PFRAs found that: Some Member States considered in their preliminary assessment all types of floods depending on their source while others only some types, but without providing an explanation why certain types were excluded. In the cases where reasons were provided, some types of floods were not included because of their unpredictability or because insufficient data were available; in a number of cases, Member States indicated their intention to include the missing flood types in future assessments. MS were to report the adverse impacts of past floods in terms of four main categories: human health, environment, cultural heritage and economic consequences. In most cases, the impacts of historic floods were mainly reported in terms of human health (reflecting the information on record), while the consequences of potential future floods were reported in terms of economic losses. To identify and quantify potential future adverse consequences of floods, Member States applied different methods. Some countries used modelling (hydrological and hydraulic), while others applied GIS analysis; for many, details about the methods were not provided. 16 of the 23 Member States assessed considered climate change in their PFRAs, however, the approaches used were mostly not clear. The assessment of the FHRMs found that: For eight Member States, there were differences between the APSFRs identified in the PFRA and those for which FHRMs were prepared. Some types of floods associated with the APSFRs were not included in the FHRMs. The most common source of floods mapped by Member States was fluvial (mapped in 25 Member States). The most common sources of reported historical flood events were fluvial (66% of events) followed by pluvial (20%) and sea water (16%). In terms of potential future floods, the sources reported were fluvial (76%) followed by sea water (18%) and pluvial (8%). Even though all Member States (except the island Member States of Cyprus and Malta) share RBs with neighbouring countries, in most cases (15) it was not clear if shared flood hazard and flood risk areas were designated and mapped and if information was exchanged. The 2015 FHRM assessment identified areas for improvement and provided recommendations for each Member State. In the assessment of the FRMPs, the previously identified areas for improvement were revisited. However, the majority of the FRMPs assessed do not provide explicit information if and how these issues have been addressed and if the recommendations from the 2015 assessment have been considered in the FRMPs. Although the information available in some of the FRMPs assessed suggest that progress has been made and some of the areas for improvement have been addressed, to obtain an accurate picture the assessments of the 2nd cycle PFRAs and FHRMs must be carried out first. 6.1.2.Application of Article 13 A Member States may have decided as a transitional measure for the 1st cycle of implementation of the FD not to undertake the PFRA or identify APSFRs and/or prepare FHRMs under the FD, if the country had finalised an equivalent exercise before 22 December 2010. The assessment of the PFRAs indicated that Article 13(1)(a) and (b) were applied in 10 Member States: Latvia and Luxembourg notified the use of Article 13(1)(a) across all their territories; Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal notified the use of Article 13(1)(b) across all their territories; Denmark, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom notified the use of combinations of Articles 4, 5, 13(1)(a) and/or 13(1)(b) (i.e. they applied Article 13(1) over part/s of their territory).

The assessment of FRMPs found that only a few of these Member States mentioned the application of Article 13(1) in their FRMPs. The five Italian FRMPs assessed did so, explaining that Italy used the previous Plans of Hydrogeological Status to identify areas of flood risk. Latvia’s four FRMPs note that a risk assessment was carried out in 2007. 6.1.3.Changes since the last reporting The assessment of FRMPs and Member States reporting looked for evidence on whether Member States have updated their APSFRs or their FHRMs since their last reporting on the subject. In 9 of the 26 Member States assessed, the FRMPs refer to changes. FRMPs in Germany, Spain, Romania, Sweden and Luxembourg report modifications to the APSFRs, for example in terms of boundaries or the total numbers of areas designated. In Belgium, Croatia, Italy, Romania and Poland, some FRMPs report changes to the FHRMs, e.g. to provide information missing from the 1st. cycle, reflect updates in the APSFRs or refine the information in the FHRMs (see the box on Poland below). In seven Member States, the number of APSFRs changed between the PFRA stage and the FRMP stage (see Table 2 in section 4). Box 8 - Example of changes to the previous steps reported in the FRMPs In Poland, the FRMPs refer to changes in the identification of flood hazards and risks: a verification of the FHRMs was carried out in 2014; the FRMPs were based on maps that were updated in 2015 following this verification. The FRMPs explain that the flood hazard maps published in December 2013 were prepared based on a terrain model validated for the years 2011-2013. In 2014, the flood hazard maps were reviewed in connection to comments made by administrative authorities and other stakeholders, concerning inter alia, the fact that the maps did not include infrastructure and property investments completed later than the acquisition of the numerical terrain model. In the period from 22 December 2014 to 22 June 2015, further comments of administrative authorities were received regarding needs to include flood risk and the methodology used in the development of maps (including for maps for seawater flooding in terms of wavelengths). To meet these expectations, a further scenario was prepared for the FRMPs, containing updated ranges of flood risk areas in relation to the areas indicated in the FHRM in 2014. 6.2.Conclusions of the PFRAs Nearly all Member States assessed included the conclusions of their PFRAs in their FRMPs (with the exception of France and Belgium; the latter applied Article13(1)(b) and did not prepare a PFRA under the FD). Most often these conclusions are presented as a textual description, a list or a summary of the APSFRs. Nearly all Member States provide also maps of the APSFRs designated, such as summary maps or more detailed maps of example APSFRs. In most cases, the FRMPs also provide links to websites where these and more detailed maps can be found. The Belgian and French FRMPs also include links to APSFR maps even though they do not provide details about their PFRAs. In at least four Member States, however, the internet links provided in the FRMPs were not functional at the time of the assessment of the FRMPs. In three other cases, web-links to maps are provided only for some but not all of the FRMPs assessed. The FRMPs in a few Member States note that, in addition to APSFRs, other risk areas were designated. One example is Latvia, where priority flood areas are designated; another is Finland, where flood areas not judged as significant were identified. In ten of the 26 Member States assessed, the FRMPs provide information not only about the conclusions of the PFRAs but also the methodology and process of their preparation (the box below provides an example from Bulgaria. Box 9 - FRMPs that provide information on the PFRA process In Bulgaria, although the structure and level of detail of the PFRA presentation varies across the FRMPs, all four present a brief description of the PFRA, information about the main floods and their causes in the past, analysis of the potential floods in the future (e.g. causes and impacts) and a description of the designation of APSFRs. The Black Sea FRMP provides a description of the national methodology for the PFRA, including information used to model future floods. The East Aegean FRMP also provides detailed maps of the past and potential future floods together with references and sources for the analysis. 6.2.1.Inclusion of flood conveyance routes Article 2(1) of the Directive defines flooding as “the temporary covering by water of land not normally covered by water.” According to Articles 4 and 7(3) of the FD, Member States should include flood conveyance routes in their PFRAs and FRMPs respectively. In both Articles, flood conveyance routes are mentioned next to flood extent. This is because flood conveyance routes can be defined either as the progression of flood water downstream, or, once out of the channel (alternatively, once it has accumulated e.g. due to intense raining) as the course that flood water follows as it spreads, or extends, beyond the area that it normally covers. Depending on the source, the characteristics and the mechanism of the flood, whereas in a rural, flat area, flood water may spread in all directions, in an urban area with a more varied terrain (e.g. valleys) and several “obstacles” (such as buildings or large vehicles) flood water may follow a narrower path, roughly along what would have been a thalweg prior to the urbanisation of the area. The assessment of the PFRAs showed that conveyance routes were one of the aspects most often not included in the PFRAs: Only six Member States provided information on the conveyance routes of historical floods. For the FRMPs as well, only some of the FRMPs assessed include explicit information about flood conveyance routes. Among these, the FRMPs of five Member States – the Czech Republic, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia – provide information about the identification of flood conveyance routes. In the Netherlands, for example, conveyance is mentioned throughout the Rhine FRMP (NLRN) to highlight that rivers need more space to allow the evacuation of water. Other FRMPs mention that flood conveyance routes were considered but without providing further detail (this was the case for FRMPs assessed in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany and Slovenia). However, in yet other FRMPs assessed, no references to flood conveyance routes were found. Box 10 - Using the PFRA in the development of FHRMs: examples from Austria and Cyprus In Austria, the FRMP reports that the PFRA and the identified APSFRs were used as the basis for developing the FHRMs; some additional sources of information were also consulted (results from run-off models, zoning/hazard zoning according to Austrian law, hazard zoning plans according to the 1975 forestry law, and the floods zoning for Austria). The FRMP states that the flood hazard maps cover more areas than the APSFR if possible, but it is not specified how much more or which areas in addition to the APSFRs. In Cyprus, the PFRA created a database of valuable information about past flooding events, their gravity, extent, location, frequency and the subsequent impacts on the population, the economy and the environment. The PFRA process contributed to the identification of existing drainage and flood-relief mechanisms and provided a detailed depiction of current land uses in Cyprus, particularly in relation to sources of flood. The codification and examination of these data, in combination with climate change considerations, was used in the identification of APSFRs. The PFRA and APSFRs were then used as the basis for developing the FHRMs. The reasons why conveyance routes were one of the aspects often not included in the FRMPs (and PFRAs) are not clear. Possible explanations could be little or no information on past floods, uncertainty about the probability (or the most likely location) of natural or flood defence exceedance (or failure); not accurate enough digital models of the terrain or the built environment; not powerful enough hydrodynamic models. 6.2.2.Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHRMs Although the level of detail provided across Member States varies, in most cases the results of the PFRAs were used to inform the FHRMs and FHRMs were prepared for the APSFRs identified during the PFRA: This process is described in the FRMPs of 15 of the 26 Member States. The FRMPs of some Member States provide also information on how the FHRMs were prepared based on the PFRAs (see the box above) or how the preparation of the FHRMs resulted in some updates of the PFRA/APSFRs (see the box below for examples).

Box 11 - Updating the APSFRs in the FHRM process: examples from Hungary and Luxembourg In Hungary, the flood risk modelling that was used for the PFRA has been updated to take into account recent infrastructure (such as roads) and buildings in the floodplain. A 2D numerical modelling technique was introduced and applied to calculate the potential flooding, and this work required updating of the information based on the flood basins, resulting in some modifications of the PFRA results. For the FHRMs, Hungary revised the design flood protection levels on all rivers that were the subject of mapping: the new levels draw upon the modification of the findings of the PFRA. In Luxembourg, the FRMP reports that some recalculations were performed on the maps for some APSFRs. Recalculations of mapping data involved consideration of additional measures (extended re-naturalisation measures in the Alzette APSFR A01, and ecologically oriented flood protection measures in the Sauer APSFR A03); and in some locations more detailed modelling using a two-dimensional water level model (Nordstad in A01, Roudbach/Attert confluence A12/A11). These updates were undertaken in the maps made available to the public in 2014. 6.3.Conclusions from the FHRMs Nearly all Member States assessed reported the conclusions of the FHRMs in their FRMPs (with the exceptions of France and Malta). Most often these conclusions are presented as a short textual description or explanation and links to websites where the maps can be found (it should be noted that the French FRMPs assessed contain links to FHRMs even though details about these maps are not provided). Some FRMPs reproduce examples of FHRMs. The internet links provided in some FRMPs were not functional at the time of the assessment: this was the case for all FRMPs assessed in six Member States and for some but not all of the FRMPs assessed in four other Member States. Box 12 - A web site on risk management for the public In the Netherlands, FHRMs can be seen found on a web site – http://www.risicokaart.nl – that provides the public with information on flood risks and other risks, including hazardous substances, fires and nuclear accidents. Online maps can be accessed by entering a local address. The web site also provides information on preparation in case of a flood, alert networks and actions to take during a flood event. A similar website exists in the United Kingdom: https://www.gov.uk/check-flood-risk 6.3.1.Flooding sources As noted above, the assessment of Member States’ PFRAs noted that in many cases, not all conceivable flood sources were explicitly considered. The assessment of FRMPs found a continuation of this practice: The majority of the FRMPs assessed provide only limited information about the sources of floods considered, likely making the implicit assumption that the sources considered in previous steps of the cycle are carried over. In few cases, namely Belgium, Malta and Romania, the FRMPs assessed do not provide any information concerning the sources of floods considered, while in Bulgaria’s case, the information is provided in some but not all FRMPs assessed. Many of the FRMPs assessed mention flood sources without explanation why some types of floods have not been included – this is the case for the FRMPs from 12 Member States. The assessment of the PFRAs indicated that four Member States had not included any information on sources of flooding in their flood risk assessments since they applied Article 13(1)(b). All other Member States, except for Luxembourg, had considered fluvial floods in their assessments. Thirteen Member States had considered all five types of flooding sources – fluvial, pluvial, groundwater, seawater and floods from artificial water bearing structures (AWBS); of these, only four Member States considered all five types of floods as significant, while for five Member States there was no information why some types of considered were significant or not. Of the other countries, eight Member States provided explanation why some types of flooding sources were not considered as significant while seven countries excluded some types of flooding without providing a justification. Considering the sources of flooding for which FHRMs were prepared, the assessment of the FHRMs analysed information for 26 Member States (Bulgaria and Greece were late with the reporting) and found at the time that all Member States prepared maps for fluvial floods. In addition, 17 Member States prepared maps for seawater floods, 14 for pluvial floods, 9 for floods from AWBS and only 4 for groundwater floods. Explanations or justification of the choice of flooding sources included in the FRMPs were found only in the FRMPs of some Member States including Austria and Denmark (described in the box below) as well as Cyprus, Luxembourg and Sweden. Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia report covering ‘all relevant’ sources of floods either separately or together, while the Portuguese FRMPs explain that additional sources of flooding will be considered in the next management cycle. Box 13 - Examples of explanations which sources of floods have been included in the FHRMs In Austria, fluvial and pluvial floods are considered significant. However, no APSFRs have been designated so far for pluvial flooding, as these are very local events in Austria, and the uncertainties were considered too high. Floods from groundwater and artificial water bearing structures are not considered significant, and again no APSFRs have been designated. Hence, APSFRs have been designated only for fluvial floods (including floods from lakes) and as a result FHRMs have been produced only for this type of floods. In Denmark, the FHRMs in all FRMPs assessed cover only fluvial and seawater floods. Neither in the FRMPs assessed, nor in the national web-GIS, are there maps for groundwater floods or floods from artificial water bearing structures (according to the PFRA assessment, the latter are not relevant for Denmark; information was not found, however, to indicate if groundwater floods could be relevant). Pluvial flooding was not assessed at the PFRA stage. Nevertheless, for one of the five municipal FRMPs assessed a local map was prepared showing the combined effect of flooding from seawater, fluvial and pluvial sources. Considering the information available in the FRMPs assessed (a summary is provided in the following table) the most significant source of flooding in the majority of the Member States is fluvial floods. Some Member States considered also seawater floods or the combined effects of multiple sources of floods (in fact Slovenia and Slovakia presented only the combined effects of different types of floods). Overall, few Member States considered pluvial and groundwater floods or floods from artificial water bearing structures. MS Fluvial Pluvial Seawater Ground-water AWBS Other sources Multiple sources AT ✓ Not relevant BE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BG ✓ ✓ CY ✓ CZ ✓ ✓ Not relevant ✓ ✓ DE ✓ ✓ ✓ DK ✓ ✓ ✓ EE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ES ✓ ✓ ✓ FI ✓ ✓ FR ✓ ✓ HR ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ HU ✓ ✓ Not relevant ✓ ✓ IT ✓ ✓ LT ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ LU ✓ Not relevant LV ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ MT NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NL ✓ ✓ PL ✓ ✓ PT ✓ RO NA NA NA NA NA NA NA SE ✓ ✓ SI (✓) (✓) (✓) (✓) (✓) ✓ SK (✓) (✓) Not relevant (✓) ✓ UK ✓ ✓ ✓ Sources: Member State reporting and FRMPs. Notes: AWBS=Artificial Water Bearing Structures; NA=Not available (i.e. information was not available in the FRMPs assessed, footnotes were added based on the ‘EU overview of methodologies used in preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps’ report); (✓)=the flood type was considered through the assessment of ‘multiple sources’ of floods. 6.3.2.Using the FHRMs in the development of the FRMPs

The FRMPs assessed, along with Member States reporting to WISE, provide some information in nearly all Member States on how the FHRMs were used to prepare the Plans themselves (with the exception of Croatia and Malta whose FRMPs do not describe how the FHRMs informed the plans). Many FRMPs refer to the FHRMs informing the definition of the measures. Some Member States report that the FHRMs informed the setting of objectives or priorities and the public participation process (for an overview see the following table). MS Setting FRM priorities Setting FRM objectives Defining FRM measures Public participation process AT ✓ BE ✓ ✓ BG ✓ ✓ ✓ CY ✓ ✓ CZ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ DE ✓ ✓ ✓ DK ✓ ✓ EE ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ES ✓ ✓ ✓ FI ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ FR ✓ ✓ ✓ HU ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ IT ✓ LT ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ LU ✓ ✓ LV ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ NL ✓ ✓ PL ✓ ✓ PT ✓ ✓ ✓ RO ✓ ✓ ✓ SE ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ SI ✓ SK ✓ ✓ UK ✓ ✓ ✓ Sources: Member State reporting and FRMPs. Notes: FRM=Flood Risk Management; information not found in the FRMP for Malta; in Croatia the FHRMs informed the assessment of potential damages. Despite these references, few FRMPs provide a detailed explanation of the role FHRMs played in the preparation of the Plans. Box 14 - Using the FHRMs in the development of the FRMPs In Portugal, all FRMPs include a standard text regarding the relevance of the FHRM work and its results for the definition of the FRMP. In four of the FRMPs assessed it is clearly stated that the FHRMs have been used to define and prioritise flood risk measures and their type (although it is not clear how the maps guided the definition of objectives). The measures were devised and prioritised considering the damages identified in the FHRMs, and in particular addressing the significance of: human lives at jeopardy, potential damage to the environment, potential damage to infrastructure and potential damage to hazardous industry. In the United Kingdom, the English FRMPs assessed (Solway Tweed for the English part of UK02 and Severn, UK09) state that in developing the proposed measures, conclusions were drawn from FHRMs which help to identify risks and opportunities. In the Scottish strategies assessed (Clyde and Loch Lomond in UK01 and Solway in the Scottish part of UK02), it is stated that the FHRMs helped inform the selection of measures to manage flood risk in Potentially Vulnerable Areas. Target areas within the Potentially Vulnerable Areas have been set to focus measures. 6.4.Coordination with other Member States and third countries 6.4.1.PFRA/APSFR stage coordination The assessment of the PFRA and FHRM stages found that inter-MS provision of information was lacking regarding transboundary cooperation, including on the existence of shared flood risk areas. The FRMPs assessed provide some information on this topic. Nearly all Member States which share UoMs with neighbouring Member States report that coordination took place during the PFRAs, even though common transboundary APSFRs were hardly identified. In fact, references to shared APSFRs were found in the FRMPs of only two Member States assessed: Bulgaria (APSFRs shared with Greece to the south and Romania to the north) and Finland (APSFRs shared with Sweden). This is contrary to at least one international FRMP, where transboundary APSFRs were identified. Considering the transboundary nature of significant flooding, this apparent contradiction should be resolved in the direction of appreciating the whole extent of an APSFRs’ area of influence (upstream and downstream), as opposed to resorting to exclusively nationally defined APSFRs. In most cases, the FRMPs assessed, as well as Member States reporting, refer to coordination on flood risk management through the river commissions for international RBs. In some cases, coordination under bilateral agreements is also reported, for example between Germany and the Netherlands. The FRMPs for both Bulgaria and Slovenia, for example, describe bilateral meetings with neighbouring Member States and, in Bulgaria’s case, also with third countries. 6.4.2.FHRM stage coordination As noted above, very few assessed FRMPs refer to shared APSFRs, which would require preparation of joint FHRMs. The FRMPs in Bulgaria and Finland provided an overview of work on joint FHRMs (see the box below). In other Member States, FRMPs indicate that information on FHRMs was exchanged with neighbouring countries and via international RB commissions. Luxembourg’s FRMP, for example, refers to close co-operation with neighbouring Member States within international RB commissions as well as within an Interreg project called TIMIS Flood (Transitional Internet Map Information System on Flooding). Box 15 - Examples of international coordination on joint FHRMs In Bulgaria, FHRMs were prepared for all risk areas shared with other Member States in transboundary UoMs. The development of the FHRMs for these two transboundary APSFRs was coordinated and based on mutually agreed methodologies within the international Danube RB, and with Greece. The Danube FRMP explains that the FHRMs for the Bulgarian area of the Danube were prepared as part of the project Danube Floodrisk, which included all countries from the ICPDR as partners to the project. As part of the project all national methodologies were coordinated and a common database with all necessary data was set up. The preparation of the FHRMs for the transboundary area with Romania was bilaterally coordinated at each step of the preparation. The preparation of the FHRMs for the transboundary APSFR shared with Greece was coordinated by the technical sub-group to the joint expert group under the Joint Declaration for Cooperation in the Area of Water Management with Greece. At its meetings, the methodologies of the two countries were discussed, a common methodology (e.g. concerning the scenarios to include) for the development of the FHRMs in the transboundary areas was agreed and necessary data exchanged. In Finland, the only international UoM analysed in detail for this assessment is Tornionjoki (FIVHA6), shared with Sweden, with an APSFR shared on both sides of the border. In this catchment, flood maps were elaborated in co-operation with Swedish authorities. In the FRMP summary, it is indicated that the Finnish-Swedish Tra