EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 59 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Czech Republic Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of contents Acronyms Introduction Overview Overview of the assessment Good Practices Areas for further development Recommendations 1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1 Reporting of the FRMPs 1.2 Assessment of the FRMPs 2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1 Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 2.2 Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs 2.3 Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 2.4 Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps 2.5 Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information 3. Setting of Objectives 3.1 Focus of objectives

3.2 Specific and measurable objectives 3.3 Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 3.4 Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 3.5 Process for setting the objectives 3.6 Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives 4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 4.1 Cost of measures 4.2 Funding of measures 4.3 Measurable and specific (including location) measures 4.4 Measures and objectives 4.5 Geographic coverage/scale of measures 4.6 Prioritisation of measures 4.7 Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 4.8 Progress of implementation of measures 4.9 Measures taken under other Community Acts 4.10 Specific groups of measures 4.11 Recovery from and resilience to flooding 4.12 Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 4.13 Coordination with the WFD 5. Consideration of climate change

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

Measure details: progress Measure details: other Annex B: Definitions of measure types Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) Acronyms APSFR Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis EEA European Environment Agency FD Floods Directive FHRM Flood Hazard and Risk Map FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NWRM Natural Water Retention Measures PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments PoM Programme of Measures RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment UoM Unit of Management WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe Introduction The Floods Directive (FD) (2007/60/EC) requires each Member State to assess its territory for significant risk from flooding, to map the flood extent, identify the potential adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity in these areas, and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this flood risk. By the end of 2011, Member States were to prepare Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) to identify the river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding (Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk – APSFRs). By the end of 20, Flood Hazard & Risk Maps (FHRMs) were to be drawn up for such areas. On this basis, Member States were to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by the end of 2015. This report assesses the FRMPs for the Czech Republic. Its structure follows a common assessment template used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources: ·Member State reporting to the European Commission on the FRMPs as per Articles 7 and 15 of the FD: this reporting provides an overview of the plans and details on their measures ·The three FRMPs reported by the Czech Republic for its three Units of Management (UoMs).



Overview Figure 1 Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts International River Basin Districts (within European Union) International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) as presented in the 2012 RBMP assessment reports The Czech Republic has designated three UoMs under the FD: these correspond to the river basin districts (RBDs) designated under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). All three UoMs are part of international UoMs/RBDs. In the Czech Republic, there are three levels of flood risk management plans: level A, international plans prepared by the international river basin commissions for the Elbe, Danube and Oder; level B, national plans for these three UoMs, prepared by the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture; and level C, sub-basin plans which consist of documents for APSFRs as annexes prepared by the river basin authorities in cooperation with regional authorities and with the two ministries. Three level B national plans have been developed for the APSFRs in line with the FD and these have been reported to WISE, as described below. The level C sub-basin plans deal with other flood risk areas which have not been assigned as APSFRs; moreover, the level C plans address both river basin management and flood risk management. The three national plans (Elbe, Danube and Oder) have an identical structure, and the same methods and approaches were used for all three plans. The only differences are in terms of the number of APSFRs in each UoM and the number of measures applied. The Government of the Czech Republic approved all three FRMPs by Resolution 1082 on 21 December 2015. The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in the Czech Republic, including the UoM code, the name, and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if all documents required for each UoM were submitted to European Environment Agency’s (EEA) Water Information System for Europe (WISE) – the FRMP as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML. Table 1 Overview of UoM in Czech Republic UoM Names Number of APSFRs XML Reported PDF Reported CZ1000 Danube 125 Yes Yes CZ5000 Elbe 123 Yes Yes CZ6000 Oder 21 Yes Yes TOTAL 269 The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web page: · http://www.povis.cz/html/index.html?pzpr.htm Overview of the assessment The table below gives an overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs. The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: ·Evidence to the contrary: An explicit statement was found stating that the criterion was not met; ·No evidence: No information found to indicate that the criterion was met; ·Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication of the approach used for the criterion. Depending on the comment in the adjacent column, “some evidence” could also be construed as “weak evidence”. ·Strong evidence: Clear information provided, describing an approach followed in the FRMP to address the criterion. Table 2Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs Criterion Evidence Comments FRM objectives have been established Strong evidence The strategic objectives of all three FRMPs are to reduce the likelihood of flood risk and to reduce the potential adverse consequences of flooding on human health, the environment, cultural heritage, infrastructure and economic activity. FRMPs also present three specific objectives: 1) avoiding new risks and reducing areas at unacceptable risk (through application of flood prevention in land use planning); 2) reducing flood dangers; and 3) raising preparedness of population and strengthening of resilience. FRM objectives relate to... ...the reduction of potential adverse consequences Strong evidence As noted above, one of the two strategic objectives of the three FRMPs is the reduction of the potential adverse consequences of flooding. ...to the reduction of the likelihood of flooding Strong evidence The other strategic objective of all three FRMPs is the reduction in the likelihood of flood risk. ...to non-structural initiatives Strong evidence The specific objectives include non-structural initiatives, in particular raising preparedness of population and strengthening of resilience (including through local flood action plans, sound contingency planning and flood forecasting and warning services). FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to... ...human health Strong evidence As noted above, one of the two strategic objectives of all three FRMPs is the reduction of potential adverse consequences of flooding on human health, the environment, cultural heritage, infrastructure and economic activity. ...economic activity Strong evidence See above under human health. ...environment Strong evidence See above under human health. ...cultural heritage Strong evidence See above under human health. Measures have been... ...identified Strong evidence The Czech Republic has reported to WISE 6 individual and 55 aggregated measures, with a total of 61 measures. The Czech FRMPs refer instead to general and concrete measures (and provide a different total). Concrete measures are for the most part construction measures; general measures are non-structural measures. ...prioritised Strong evidence The Czech Republic indicated the priority of all 61 measures reported. The FRMPs state that the priority of concrete measures was set by expert judgment, but do not provide further information. Relevant aspects of Article 7 have been taken into account such as... ...costs & benefits Some evidence Limited information is provided about the use of cost benefit analysis. ...flood extent Strong evidence The preliminary flood risk assessment in the Czech Republic was based on a spatial analysis of floods with recurrence Q5, Q20 and Q100. The two aspects applied were (i) the number of permanent residents affected by the flood extent in floodplains and (ii) the value of property affected by the flood extent in floodplains for return periods of 5, 20 and 100 years. ...flood conveyance Some evidence Flood conveyance routes were used during flood hazard and risk mapping. ...water retention Strong evidence The three Czech FRMPs refer to natural water retention measures (NWRM): concrete measures include flood retention by polders and reservoirs. ...environmental objectives of the WFD Strong evidence Flood reduction measures are designed with the aim of respecting the environmental objectives of the WFD. ...spatial planning/land use Strong evidence FRMP specific objectives include avoiding new risks and reducing areas at unacceptable risk through application of flood prevention in land use planning. The general prevention measures reported in the three FRMPs include land use and spatial planning. ...nature conservation No evidence No information was found in the FRMPs or the reporting sheets. ...navigation/port infrastructure No evidence No information was found in the FRMPs or the reporting sheets. ...likely impact of climate change Some evidence The FRMPs report that studies of climate impacts indicate that climate change will not have a significant impact on future flood characteristics in the Czech Republic. Coordination with other countries ensured in the RBD/UoM Strong evidence For all three Flood Risk Management Plans, international cooperation for implementation of the FD took place via international river basin commissions. Coordination ensured with WFD Strong evidence The FRMPs include a description of the coordination process with the WFD. Flood reduction measures are designed with the aim of respecting the environmental objectives of the WFD. Active involvement of interested parties Some evidence Supporting workshops addressing different elements of FRMPs were organized before publishing the draft FRMPs and further workshops took place in early 2015 after their publishing. Representatives of the Ministry of Environment, river basin authorities, regional authorities and experts attended.

Good Practices The assessment identified the following good practices in the Czech FRMPs. Table 3 Good practices in the Czech FRMPs Topic area Good practices identified Integration of previously reported information in the FRMPs. The level C sub-basin plans deal with other flood risk areas which have not been assigned as areas of potentially significant flood risk. Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk. FRMPs describe and build on the objectives for the management of flood risk in previous planning documents (Plan for major river basins approved by the Governmental resolution 562 in 2007 and Strategy for flood protection approved by the Governmental resolution 382 in 2000), which included natural water retention initiatives. Planning/implementing of measures and their prioritization for the achievement of objectives. The FRMPs provide information on the costs of “concrete” measures (overall budgets and information on the cost components – whether investment or operational costs are included is, however, not clarified). FRMPs provide information on the measures from the previous plans (river basin management plans- in 2009 contained flood risk management measures). To monitor the implementation of the FRMP measures, the effectiveness of the planned measures will be evaluated in all APSFRs through an analysis of FHR maps at the end of the flood risk management planning period, based on eight criteria. Public consultation The Czech Republic has prepared separate reports that provide an overview of the consultation process for each FRMP, indicating how each comment is addressed. Flood risk governance The level C sub-basin plans address both river basin management and flood risk management. Areas for further development The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the Czech FRMPs. Table 4 Areas for further development in the Czech FRMPs Topic area Areas identified for further development Integration of previously reported information in the FRMPs. Although all relevant sources of flood (fluvial, pluvial, groundwater, artificial water bearing structures) were assessed, the APSFR and FHR maps do not distinguish between flood sources. The national FRMPs provide little information on coordination with neighbouring Member States on the PFRA and FHRM stages (this information is instead available in the international FRMPs, and the international RBD commissions were a key forum for coordination). Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk. The objectives are not specific or measurable. Planning/implementation of measures and their prioritization for the achievement of objectives. The Czech Republic did not report on the timetable of any of the measures. Few details are provided on nature based solutions (e.g. NWRMs) and no information is provided on how nature protection is addressed. The reporting of measures to the European Commission does not match information in the FRMPs: notably, the total number of measures differs. Consideration of climate change in the FRMPs assessed. No apparent coordination with national climate change adaptation strategy. Use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in the FRMPs assessed. Limited information on cost benefit analysis was provided in national FRMPs. Recommendations Based on the reported information and the FRMPs, the following recommendations are made to enhance flood risk management (not listed in any particular order): ·To be able to assess progress, the objectives should be, to the extent possible, specific, measurable and linked to specific measures that can achieve the objectives. ·Further study on the impacts of climate change on flood risks should be carried out. Coordination between the national climate change adaptation strategy and the FRMPs should be ensured or elaborated upon. ·Cost estimates for each measure (including non-structural) and an overall budget for all measures should be provided, indicating whether the budget covers both investment and operational costs. ·The FRMPs should present a planned timetable of measures. ·The method for the prioritisation of measures should be described. The FRMPs should provide clear information on the methods used to assess costs and benefits of measures. ·More details on planned nature based solutions should be provided.



1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1Reporting of the FRMPs The Czech Republic reported three national FRMPs: for the Czech portions of the Elbe (Labe in Czech, CZ5000), Danube (Dunaj, CZ1000) and Oder (Odra, CZ6000) UoMs. The three FRMPs have an identical structure and the same methods and approaches were used for all plans. The Czech Republic did not make use of Article 13.3 of the FD, which allows Member States to make use of previous flood risk management plans (provided their content is equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive). Concerning the geographic coverage of the three FRMPs reported, there is one FRMP covering each entire UoM. In addition, other documents have been reported for some of the UoMs as annexes and/or background documents. The Czech Republic refers to three levels of flood risk management, of which the three FRMPs reported are at the middle level. Level A refers to the international FRMPs prepared by the international river basin commissions (all three Czech UoMs – Elbe, Danube, and Oder – are part of international UoMs); level B, the three national plans reported; and level C, 10 sub-basin plans. The level C sub-basin plans, integrating flood risk management and river basin management, deal with other flood risk areas which have not been assigned as the APSFR. 1.2Assessment of the FRMPs The Czech Republic has prepared three FRMPs for its three UoMs: Table 5 UoMs assessed in Czech Republic UoM code UoM Name CZ1000 DANUBE CZ5000 ELBE CZ6000 ODER The assessment covered the three national-level FRMPs (level B) for these UoMs: these FRMPs were reported to WISE. The assessment refers to the international (level A) FRMPs for some information; the sub-basin plans (level C) were not assessed.

2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment The conclusions of the PFRA are presented in all three FRMPs as a textual description, map and a table listing all APSFRs. All three Czech FRMPs provide a link to the Czech Flood Information System, POVIS ( http://www.povis.cz ), which contains river APSFR maps for all three UoMs. The preliminary flood risk assessment in the Czech Republic was based on a spatial analysis of floods with recurrence Q5, Q20 and Q100 using the data from rivers in the inundation areas. The two aspects applied were (i) the number of permanent residents affected by the flood extent in floodplains and (ii) the value of property aggrieved by the flood extent in floodplains for return periods of 5, 20 and 100 years. The adverse consequences were assessed with regard to human health, environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. An analysis of conveyance routes is included in the FRMPs in the form of flood extent maps for Q5, Q20, Q100 and Q500. 2.1.1Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs For all three Flood Risk Management Plans, international cooperation took place via the international river basin commissions, including the development of the PFRAs. 2.1.2Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHR maps

FHRMs were prepared for APSFRs. No further information is available in the FRMP. 2.2Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs The FRMPs contain examples of FHRMs with a descriptive text and they contain also tables with links to all FHRMs (presented at http://cds.chmi.cz ) in their Annexes 8.2 and 8.3 (scalable river maps showing flood hazard and flood risk). The FHRMs do not distinguish among flood sources and there is no indication in the FRMPs which flood types were addressed. However, according to the Czech PFRA report (available on the website of the Czech flood information system), fluvial, pluvial and groundwater floods as well as floods from artificial water-bearing infrastructure (dams) were addressed in the assessment of the risk of flooding under Article 4 and therefore used for FHRM preparation. 2.2.1Maps for shared flood risk areas In all three FRMPls, international cooperation in FD implementation under international river basin commissions is mentioned. This includes preparation of basin-level reports on the PFRA. No further details are available in the Czech Republic’s FRMPs, including on whether shared flood risk areas have been identified. Coordinated FHR maps for the Danube are available at the ICPDR website, those for the Elbe at the IKSE website and a description of FHRMs is also available in the international Oder FRMP. 2.2.2Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps In all the FRMPs, FHRMs have been used to develop the FRMPs. Based on the reporting sheets and the FRMPs: ·FHRMs were used to set priorities for flood risk management (e.g. locations, economic activities, assets); ·FHRMs were used as a tool in the public participation process; ·Specific objectives on flood risk reduction have been defined based on the FHRM; ·Measures have been defined based on the FHRM. During their preparation, FHRMs were submitted to public consultation at over 15 workshops. The FRMPs state that FHRM data (potentially affected population, economic activities) were used for setting FRMP objectives. The setting of priorities for flood risk management and the design of measures used criteria which employed information from FHRMs (changes in affected area, in number of population at risk, in number of constructions at risk). 2.3Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas The FRMP assessment looked for information on changes in the identification of APSFRs since December 2011, or in the FHRMs since December 2013, indicated in the FRMPs. No changes are reported for either APSFRs, or FHRMs in the Czech FRMPs. 2.4Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps The FHRM assessment identified the following areas for further development for the Czech Republic: ·All relevant sources of flood (fluvial, pluvial, groundwater, artificial water bearing structures) were assessed, but no distinction was made on maps among flood sources. This area for further development has not been addressed in the time period between publication of the FHRMs and the assessment of the FRMPs, based on the information in the online FHRMs, nor in the Czech FRMPs. 2.5Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information The following areas for further development were identified:

·Although reportedly all relevant sources of flood (fluvial, pluvial, groundwater, artificial water bearing structures) were assessed, the FHRMs do not distinguish among flood sources. ·The national FRMPs provide little information on coordination with neighbouring Member States at the PFRA and FHRM stages (this information is instead available only in the international FRMPs).

3. Setting of Objectives 3.1Focus of objectives The strategic objectives of the Czech Republic’s Flood Risk Management Plans are to: reduce the likelihood of flood risk and reduce the potential adverse consequences of flooding on human health, the environment, cultural heritage, infrastructure and economic activity. The three FRMPs all set out three specific objectives: 1.avoiding new risks and reducing areas at unacceptable risk (through application of flood prevention in land use planning); 2.reduction of flood danger (through implementation of measures aiming at flood retention, flood peak reduction, increase of natural water retention, implementation of good agricultural and forestry practices enabling water retention and proper rainwater management in urban areas); and 3.strengthening the preparedness of the population and strengthening resilience (through the preparation of local flood action plans, establishment of the necessary basis for sound contingency planning, further improvement of flood forecasting and warning services and contributions of building owners to their protection from floods and to prevention of the impacts from flooded buildings on the environment). Consequently, in the three Czech FRMPs: ·The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods; ·The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding; ·The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented; ·The objectives refer to non-structural measures. 3.2Specific and measurable objectives In the Czech Republic's FRMPs, objectives are neither specific nor measurable. The objectives are general but the measures which are based on these objectives are concrete and measurable. 3.3Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods One of the two strategic objectives calls for the reduction of adverse consequences of flooding on human health, the environment, cultural heritage, infrastructure and economic activity. This is further supported by the specific objectives, in particular the first and second specific objectives. 3.4Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding

The FRMPs set the reduction of the likelihood of flooding as one of the two strategic objectives. This is further addressed by the second specific objective, reduction of flood danger (through implementation of measures aiming at flood retention, flood peak reduction, increase of natural water retention, implementation of good agricultural and forestry practices enabling water retention and proper rainwater management in urban areas). 3.5Process for setting the objectives The FRMPs indicate that the development of the objectives was coordinated on the national and regional levels. The objectives were discussed with stakeholders within the public consultation on the FRMPs (see section 7). Further details are not provided, however. While the FRMPs cite studies concerning the impacts of climate change on floods (and highlight high uncertainty of the results of these studies), they do not explain if or how climate change has been used for the setting of the objectives. The FRMPs cite objectives for flood risk management in previous planning documents, before entry into force of the FD, such as the Czech Strategy for flood protection since the year 2000 and RBMPs: These objectives included natural water retention and the need for international cooperation, objectives that are further developed in the FRMPs. 3.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives The following good practice was identified: ·FRMPs describe and build on objectives for the management of flood risk in previous planning documents before entry into force of the FD, which included natural water retention. The following area for further development was identified: ·The objectives are not specific or measurable.

4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives The Czech Republic reported six individual and 55 aggregated measures, a total of 61 measures. The FRMPs mention that there are individual and aggregated measures but details on how these categories were defined are not provided. The aggregated measures are reported for all three UoMs; however, individual measures are only reported for the Oder UoM (CZ6000). In terms of the breakdown across the four measure aspects, the Czech Republic reported: 15 prevention measures (one individual measure and 15 aggregated measures, representing 25 % of total measures); 31 protection measures (five individual and 26 aggregated, 50 % of all measures); and 15 preparedness measures (all aggregated measures, 25 % of all measures). The Czech Republic did not report measures for recovery & review or "other" measures. According to the FRMPs, this is because recovery and review measures are obligatory in national legislation and are implemented after each flood event in a standard way. For further information on the breakdown of measures, please see Annex A for tables and charts of the measures reported. The Czech FRMPs classify measures into “general” measures, which aim at fulfilling the general objectives of flood risk management, and “concrete” measures. All general measures are non-structural measures. All concrete measures in the Danube and Elbe UoM are construction measures identified as protection measures; for the Oder UoM, the concrete measures cover both protection and prevention. The FRMPs identify 52 concrete measures in the Elbe UoM, 55 concrete measures in the Danube UoM, and 28 concrete measures in the Oder UoM. As can be seen, the total of general and concrete measures listed in the FRMPs is higher than the total number of measures reported by the Czech Republic to WISE. An explanation for the difference is not provided. In this section, some of the information available on measures comes from the reporting and other information from the FRMPs. 4.1 Cost of measures Table 6Estimated overall budget for the measures in the FRMPs UoM Estimated overall budget of planned “concrete” measures

(2015-2021) in CZK Danube (CZ1000) 14 347 400 000 Elbe (CZ5000) 7 174 900 000 Oder (CZ6000) 7 576 000 000

Source: FRMPs The Czech Republic did not provide information in its reporting sheets on the costs of measures. Its FRMPs, however, provide a cost estimate for each concrete measure. Summing up all costs for planned concrete measures in the Danube CZK gives the total of 14 347.4 m (approximately €560 m); in the Elbe UoM, a total of CZK 7 174.9 m (approximately €280 m); in the Oder CZK, 7 576 m (approximately €300 m). The FRMPs do not indicate which cost components are included in the estimates (i.e. if they represent only investment costs or also include operational costs). In contrast, no cost estimates are provided for general measures, which are non-structural measures. 4.2Funding of measures The FRMPs refer to several national funding schemes that support financing of flood risk management measures under the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment, but do not provide further detail. Table 7 Funding of measures CZ1000 CZ5000 CZ6000 Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding Use of public budget (national level) ✔ ✔ ✔ Use of public budget (regional level) ✔ ✔ Use of public budget (local level) ✔ ✔ Private investment EU funds (generic) EU Structural funds ✔ ✔ EU Solidarity Fund EU Cohesion funds EU CAP funds International funds Other Source: FRMPs 4.3Measurable and specific (including location) measures All FRMPs include a clear and explicit description of the measures with regard to: ·What they are trying to achieve, ·Where they are to be achieved, ·How they are to be achieved, and ·By when they are expected to be achieved. The general measures, which are non-structural measures, cover each sub-basin in the UoMs: for each measure, the number of APSFRs and municipalities in which they are going to be implemented is provided. A list of all concrete measures is provided in each FRMP (in Annex 8.7). For each individual concrete measure, the respective water course, location, type, description of the measure, costs, priority and status of implementation are reported. The following table lists the all the locations indicated for the Czech Republic’s measures: Table 8 Location of measures All UoMs International National RBD/UoM ✔ Sub-basin ✔ APSFR or other specific risk area ✔ Water body level More detailed than water body Source: FRMPs

4.4Measures and objectives The FRMPs make clear how measures will contribute to the achievement of objectives and by how much they will contribute. It is not clear, however, whether the objectives will be achieved when all measures are completed (as noted in section 2, the objectives are not specific or measurable). 4.5Geographic coverage/scale of measures In its reporting sheets, the Czech Republic provided the location of all measures, however, this was an open question, and as such, the level of detail varied, and it was not practical to aggregate the information. The Czech Republic did not report information about the geographic coverage of any of the measures. As noted above, the FRMPs also provide details on the location of all measures. 4.6Prioritisation of measures For the 61 measures reported, the Czech Republic indicated their priority: ·No measures have critical priority ·35 measures have very high priority (seven prevention, 20 protection and eight preparedness measures), 57 % of all 61 measures reported; ·16 measures have high priority (seven prevention, seven protection, two preparedness), 26 % of all measures; ·eight measures have moderate priority (one prevention, two protection, five preparedness), 13 % of all measures, and ·two measures have low priority (both are protection measures), 3 % of all measures. According to the FRMPs, the level of priority of concrete measures was set by expert judgment. No further information was found . The Czech Republic did not report information about the timetable of any of the measures, and no information is provided in the FRMPs. 4.7Authorities responsible for implementation of measures The Czech Republic reported on the authorities responsible for the implementation of measures; however, it has not been feasible to aggregate the varied information provided. Nevertheless, the following types of responsible authorities are indicated: municipalities and regions (jointly), municipalities, property and facility owners, river basin managers and municipalities (jointly). 4.8Progress of implementation of measures The Czech Republic indicated the progress of implementation of the 61 measures reported: ·42 measures are ‘Not started’ (all 15 prevention measures, all 15 preparedness measures and 12 protection measures), for 69 % of all measures ·eight protection measures are ‘Progress ongoing’, 13 % of all measures, and

·11 protection measures are ‘Completed’, 18 % of all measures. 4.9Measures taken under other Community Acts Member States have been asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure has been implemented: the Czech reporting sheets did not provide information, however. The Czech FRMPs refer to the WFD, but not to specific measures within the RBMPs. No explicit reference to the Seveso Directive was found in FRMPs. 4.10Specific groups of measures The four general prevention measures address land use and spatial planning: in particular, they seek to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas and to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a flood. Some NWRM have been planned in all three Czech FRMPs, with limited detail. The concrete measures include flood retention by polders and reservoirs and stream revitalisation. The FRMPs also refer to NWRM prepared under the Czech RBMPs. No information was found regarding measures which specifically consider nature conservation. No information was found regarding measures related to navigation and port infrastructure. Specific information about dredging was not found, but there are measures to increase the river channel capacity (and these could potentially include dredging). 4.11Recovery from and resilience to flooding The role of insurance policies is not discussed in any of the Czech FRPMs. 4.12Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP To monitor the implementation progress of the FRMP measures, the effectiveness of the planned measures will be evaluated in all APSFRs through an analysis of FHR maps at the end of the flood risk management planning period. This analysis will be based on the following criteria: 1) change in areas at unacceptable risk, 2) change of the number of population at unacceptable risk, 3) change of the number of constructions (objects) at unacceptable risk, 4) individual assessment of vulnerable objects, 5) change of the number of updated municipal flood action plans, 6) change of the number of local urban plans (or change in their quality), 7) change in the number of flood warning sites, 8) change of the number of the municipalities with flood warning systems. The baseline is set by the FHR maps elaborated in 2013. 4.13Coordination with the WFD The table below shows how the development of the FRMP has been coordinated with the development of the second River Basina management Plan (RBMP) of the WFD. Table 9 Coordination of the development of the FRMP with the development of the second RBMP of the WFD All UoMs Integration of FRMP and RBMP in a single plan * Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP ✔ Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP ✔ Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD ✔ The objectives of the FD were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a ✔ Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in the FRMP ✔ The RBMP Programme of Measures (PoM) includes win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and FD, drought management and NWRM a ✔ Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence maintenance or construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and RBMPs ✔ Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included ✔ Consistent and compliant application of WFD Article 4(7) and designation of heavily modified water bodies with measures taken under the FD e.g. flood defence infrastructure The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, have been adapted to take into account WFD Environmental Objectives ✔ The use of sustainable drainage systems, such as the construction of wetland and porous pavements, have been considered to reduce urban flooding and also to contribute to the achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives Notes: * integrated plans cover river basin and flood risk management at sub-basin level (C-level plans). a based on reporting under the WFD. Full integration of FRM and RBM plans is on the level C, as the sub-basin plans deal with both river basin management and flood risk management (level C plans deal with other areas which have not been assigned as the areas of potential significant flood risk but all APSFRs, Flood Hazard Risk maps and flood risk management planning for levels B and A are also initially prepared for sub-basins). The measures for RBM plans are designed with the aim of having positive effects on reducing flood risks (natural water retention). Flood reduction measures are designed with the aim of respecting the environmental objectives of WFD. Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures

The following good practices were identified: ·The FRMPs provide information on the costs of “concrete” measures. ·FRMPs provide information on the measures from the previous plans (river basin management plans in 2009 contained flood risk management measures). ·To monitor the implementation of the FRMP measures, the effectiveness of the planned measures will be evaluated in all APSFRs through an analysis of FHR maps at the end of the flood risk management planning period, based on eight criteria. The following areas for further development were identified: ·While cost information is provided, the FRMPs do not include overall budgets and information on whether both investment and operational costs are included. ·Few details are provided on nature based solutions (e.g. NWRMs) and no information is provided on how nature protection is addressed.



5. Consideration of climate change The three FRMPs refer to Czech studies investigating impacts of climate change on floods, and they highlight the high level of uncertainty in the results of these studies. In summarising the studies, the FRMPs present a conclusion that climate change will not impact future flood characteristics in the Czech Republic significantly. Chapter 3.3. contains references to the shift in occurrence of extreme events and changes in numerical recurrence times. While winter precipitation is projected to increase and summer precipitation to decrease, as noted above, no major changes in the occurrence of extreme events are predicted. The FRMPs do not provide references to the Czech Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. 5.1Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change There is no information in the FRMPs regarding specific measures to address expected effects of climate change. 5.2Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change Because of the conclusion that climate change will not significantly impact future flood characteristics in the Czech Republic, the absence in the FRMPs of any reference to climate change related measures is not considered to be a weakness for the current FRMPs. However, due to the uncertainty of how the climate change phenomenon will develop, it is expected that the Czech Republic will adopt a precautionary approach and keep studying climate change and include relevant findings (incl. responses) in the second cycle of the FD. Also, coordination between the national climate change adaptation strategy and the FRMPs should be ensured.



6. Cost-benefit analysis Only limited information on cost benefit analysis was provided in FRMPs stating that the assessment of construction measures is based on the assessment of their costs and benefits using risk analysis of potential flood damages. The Czech reporting sheets do not provide any information on CBA. The international plan for the Danube River Basin District states that: “No cost benefit analysis in flood risk management was applied in CZ as there was no methodology available for the evaluation of the benefit of the flood risk protection measures mentioned in the Czech national Flood risk management plan for the Danube River Basin District. For the purpose of evaluation of particular flood protection measures by strategic experts the efficiency ratio is calculated using the expected flood damages and the costs of the measures.”

Taking into account this information, it appears that a full CBA was not used, though an expert assessment of costs and benefits was carried out for at least a set of measures. 6.1Good practices and areas for further development concerning cost-benefit analysis The following area for further development was identified: ·The Czech FRMPs provide limited information on the use of CBA, and, taking into account information from the international Danube FRMP, it appears that a full-fledged CBA was not used.

7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation 7.1Competent authorities Based on the FRMPs and the information provided in the reported sheets, the Competent Authorities and the UoAs identified for the FD have not changed. No changes have been notified in Czech reporting on Competent Authorities since the last update in 2012. 7.2Public information and consultation The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the three UoMs concerning the draft FRMPs. Information on how the consultation was actually carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section: Table 10 Methods used to inform the public and interested parties of the FRMPs CZ1000 CZ5000 CZ6000 Media (papers, TV, radio) Internet ✔ ✔ ✔ Digital social networking Printed material Direct mailing Invitations to stakeholders Local Authorities ✔ ✔ ✔ Meetings ✔ ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs Supporting workshops addressing different elements of the FRMPs were organised before publishing draft FRMPs. Draft FRMPs were uploaded on 22 December 2014 on the website of the Czech flood information system (POVIS) and on website of river basin authorities. Workshops took place in early 2015 at which representatives of Ministry of Environment, river basin authorities, regional authorities and experts discussed the draft FRMP. The table below shows how the actual consultation was carried out: Table 11 Methods used for the actual consultation CZ1000 CZ5000 CZ6000 Via Internet ✔ ✔ ✔ Via digital social networking Direct invitation ✔ ✔ ✔ Exhibitions Workshops, seminars or conferences ✔ ✔ ✔ Telephone surveys Direct involvement in drafting FRMP Postal written comments ✔ ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs As noted above, workshops were organized before publishing draft FRMPs and in early 2015. Stakeholders could submit comments via the Internet or via post to the competent authorities. The table below shows how the documents for the consultation were provided:

Table 12 Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation All UoMs Downloadable ✔ Direct mailing (e-mail) Direct mailing (post) Paper copies distributed at exhibitions Paper copies available in municipal buildings (town hall, library etc.) Paper copies at the main office of the competent authority ✔ Source: FRMPs The documents for the consultation were available for download from the Internet. There were no differences between the FRMPs. 7.3Active involvement of Stakeholders The table below shows the groups of stakeholders that have been actively involved in the development of the three FRMPs: Table 13 Groups of stakeholders All UoMs Civil Protection Authorities such as Government Departments responsible for emergency planning and coordination of response actions ✔ Flood Warning / Defence Authorities ✔ Drainage Authorities Emergency services Water supply and sanitation Agriculture / farmers Energy / hydropower Navigation / ports Fisheries / aquaculture Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) NGOs including nature protection, social (e.g. children, housing) Consumer Groups Local / Regional authorities ✔ Academia / Research Institutions ✔ Source: FRMPs According to the FRMPs, the stakeholders who participated in special events organised to provide information about the first draft Flood Risk Management Plans were: representatives of Civil Protection Authorities and Flood Warning / Defence Authorities, experts from research institutions and the representatives of local authorities. The table below shows the mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders: Table 14 Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders All UoMs Regular exhibitions Establishment of advisory groups ✔ Involvement in drafting Workshops and technical meetings ✔ Formation of alliances Information days Source: FRMPs The main mechanisms for active involvement of stakeholders were the formation of advisory groups and the organisation of workshops. The FRMPs do not provide details on these mechanisms, however. 7.4Effects of consultation Information about the effects of public consultation on the FRMPs is available in the national Flood information system (POVIS). There is a document for each FRMP: ·Elbe FRMP: http://www.povis.cz/pdf/PZPR_Labe_vyhodnoceni_pripominek.pdf ; ·Oder FRMP: http://www.povis.cz/pdf/PZPR_Odra_vyhodnoceni_pripominek.pdf ; ·Danube FRMP http://www.povis.cz/pdf/PZPR_Dunaj_vyhodnoceni_pripominek.pdf .

In these documents, each comment is presented, and the action taken is indicated for each (i.e. if the comment is accepted, not accepted, or clarified). 7.5Strategic Environmental Assessment According to the Czech Republic’s reporting sheets, all three FRMPs underwent a Strategic Environmental Assessment procedure. The FRMPs, however, do not refer to the SEA. 7.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance The following good practice was identified: ·The Czech Republic has prepared reports that provide an overview of the consultation process for each FRMP, indicating for example how each comment was addressed.

· Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures provided by the Czech Republic in the reporting sheets. These tables and charts were used for the preparation of section 4 on measures. Background & method This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs). The tables and charts below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the Member States and were used by the Member State assessor to complete the questions on the Flood measures. The data are extracted from the XMLs (reporting sheets) reported by Member States for each FRMP, and are split into the following sections: ·Measures overview – Tabulates the number of measures for each UoM; ·Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; ·Measures details: name & location – Location & geographic coverage; ·Measure details: authorities – Name of responsible authority & level of responsibility; ·Measure details: objectives – Objectives, Category of priority & Timetable; ·Measure details: progress – Progress of implementation & Progress description; ·Measure details: other – Other Community Acts. On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the FD), not all fields are mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields. Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers – for example, progress is measured via the categories set out in the Reporting Guidance. This means that producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort. For many fields, however, a free data format was used. For some Member States, this resulted in thousands of different answers, or answers given in the national language.

In such situations, tables and charts were developed using the following steps: ·A first filter is applied to identify how many different answers were given. If a high number of different answers are given, Member States assessors were asked to refer to the raw data when conducting the assessment, and this Annex does not reflect these observations. ·If a manageable number of answers are given, obvious categories are identified, and raw data sorted. ·Measures missing information may be assigned categories based on other fields (for example, if the level of Responsibility Authority is missing, the information may be obvious from the field “name of Responsible Authority”). ·Measures where obvious categories cannot be defined based on other available information (as in the example above on the name of the Responsible Authority), are categorised as “no information”. Types of measures used in reporting The following table is used in the reporting on the types of measures. Each type of measures is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. NO ACTION M11: No Action PREPAREDNESS M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning M42: Emergency response planning M43: Public Awareness M44: Other preparedness PREVENTION M21: Avoidance M22: Removal or relocation M23: Reduction M24: Other prevention RECOVERY & REVIEW M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery M52: Environmental recovery M53: Other recovery PROTECTION M31: Natural flood management M32: Flow regulation M33: Coastal and floodplain works M34: Surface Water Management M35: other protection OTHER MEASURES M61: Other measures

List of Annex A tables & figures Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Category of priority by measure aspect Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Category of priority by UoM Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Level of responsibility by measure aspect Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Level of responsibility by UoM Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A9: Progress of implementation by measure aspect Figure A8 - Visualisation of Table A10: Progress of implementation by UoM

Table A1 - Total number of measures Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure aspect and UoM Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, including duplicates Table A5 - Category of priority by measure aspect Table A6 - Category of priority by UoM Table A7 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect Table A8 - Level of responsibility by UoM Table A9 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect Table A10 – Progress of implementation by UoM Measures overview Table A1 - Total number of measures Number of individual measures 6 Number of individual measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 6 Number of aggregated measures 55 Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 55 Total number of measures 61 Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 61 Range of number of measures between UoMs (Min-Max) 17 – 26 Average number of measures across UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 20 Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure aspect and UoM Prevention Protection Preparedness Recovery & Review Other Grand Total M24 M32 CZ6000 1 5 6 Grand Total 1 5 6 Average per UoM 1 5 0 0 0 6 Note: Individual measures were reported only for CZ6000 and only for prevention and protection aspects.

Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM Prevention Protection Preparedness Recovery & Review Other Grand Total M21 M22 M23 M24 M31 M32 M33 M41 M42 M43 M44 CZ_1000 2 2 1 4 2 3 1 2 17 CZ_5000 2 2 5 5 2 2 18 CZ_6000 2 1 2 2 5 3 2 1 2 20 Grand Total 6 1 6 1 4 9 13 6 6 1 2 0 0 55 Average per UoM 2 <1 2 <1 1 3 4 2 2 <1 1 0 0 18 Note: Aggregated measures were reported only for prevention, protection and preparedness aspects. Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, including duplicates Prevention Prevention Protection Protection Preparedness Preparedness Recovery & Review Other Grand Total Aggregate Individual Total Aggregate Individual Total Aggregate Total CZ6000 5 1 6 7 5 12 8 8 26 CZ5000 4 4 10 10 4 4 18 CZ1000 5 5 9 9 3 3 17 Grand Total 14 1 15 26 5 31 15 15 0 0 61 Average per UoM 5 <1 5 9 2 10 5 5 0 0 20 Notes: Aggregated measures were reported only for prevention, protection and preparedness aspects. Individual measures were reported only for CZ6000 and only for prevention and protection aspects. The information in Table A4 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect Measure details: cost Member States were requested to report information on: ·Cost (optional field); ·Cost explanation (optional field). The Czech Republic did not provide information about costs or cost explanations for any of the measures in the reporting sheets.

Measure details: name & location Member States were requested to report information on the following: ·Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); ·Geographic coverage of the impact of measures (optional field). Location of measures The Czech Republic reported on the location of all measures, however, this was an open question, and as such, the level of detail varied, and it was not practical to aggregate the information. Please refer to the reporting sheets for a full list of the location of measures. Geographic coverage No information was reported in the reporting sheets. Measure details: objectives Member States were requested to report information on: ·Objectives linked to measures (optional field, complementary to the summary provided in the textual part of the XML); ·Category of priority (Conditional, reporting on either ‘category of priority’ or ‘timetable’ is required); ·Timetable (Conditional, reporting on either ‘category of priority’ or ‘timetable’ is required). Objectives The Czech Republic did not provide information about the geographic coverage of any of the measures in the reporting sheets. Category of priority The Czech Republic reported the priority for all measures under the following categories: ·Critical ·Very high ·High

·Moderate ·Low. Table A5 - Category of priority by measure aspect Very high High Moderate Low Grand Total Prevention 7 7 1 15 Protection 20 7 2 2 31 Preparedness 8 2 5 15 Grand Total 35 16 8 2 61 Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Category of priority by measure aspect Notes: No measures were categorised as critical. Table A6 - Category of priority by UoM Very high High Moderate Low Grand Total CZ_6000 13 6 7 26 CZ_5000 15 3 18 CZ_1000 7 7 1 2 17 Grand Total 35 16 8 2 61 Average per UoM 12 5 3 1 20

Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Category of priority by UoM Notes: No measures were categorised as critical. Timetable The Czech Republic did not provide information about the timetable of any of the measures. Measure details: authorities Member States were requested to report information on: ·Name of the responsible authority (optional if ‘level of responsibility’ is reported); ·Level of responsibility (optional if ‘name of the responsible authority’ is reported).

·Municipalities and regions; ·Municipality; ·Owner – refers to owner of the property or facility; ·RB manager, municipality – refers to River Basin manager and municipality; ·Other. Table A7 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect Municipalities and regions Municipality Owner RB manager, municipality Other No information Grand Total Prevention 6 7 2 15 Protection 1 4 2 24 31 Preparedness 7 1 3 4 15 Grand Total 7 8 10 4 2 30 61 Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Level of responsibility by measure aspect Table A8 - Level of responsibility by UoM Municipalities and regions Municipality Owner RB manager, municipality Other No information Grand Total CZ_6000 2 3 4 2 15 26 CZ_5000 3 2 3 4 6 18 CZ_1000 2 3 3 9 17 Grand Total 7 8 10 4 2 30 61 Average per UoM 2 3 3 1 1 10 20 Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Level of responsibility by UoM Measure details: progress

Member States were requested to report information on: ·Progress of implementation of measures (mandatory field) – this is a closed question whose responses are analysed below; ·Progress description of the implementation of measures (optional field) – this is an open text question for which not all Member States reported and whose answers are not analysed here. The Czech Republic reported information about the progress of implementation of the measures. The Progress of implementation was reported as : ·COM (completed); ·OGC (ongoing construction); ·POG (progress ongoing); ·NS (not started). A full definition of these terms can be found at the end of this section. Table A9 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect Completed Progress ongoing Not started Grand Total Prevention 15 15 Protection 11 8 12 31 Preparedness 15 15 Grand Total 11 8 42 61 Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A9: Progress of implementation by measure aspect Table A10 – Progress of implementation by UoM Completed Progress ongoing Not started Grand Total CZ_6000 5 1 20 26 CZ_5000 4 14 18 CZ_1000 2 7 8 17 Grand Total 11 8 42 61 Average per UoM 4 3 14 20 Figure A8 - Visualisation of Table A10: Progress of implementation by UoM The categories describing the progress of measures are defined in the EU Reporting Guidance Document on the FD.