EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 75 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Mangement Plans - Member State: The Netherlands Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 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 Water Framework Directive

4.14 Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures 5. Consideration of climate change 5.1 Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change 6. Cost-benefit analysis 6.1 Good practices and areas for further development 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 (MS) to assess its territory for significant risk from flooding, to map the flood extent, identify the potential adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity in these areas, and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this flood risk. By the end of 2011, Member States were to prepare Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) to identify the river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding (Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk – APSFRs). By the end of 2013, Flood Hazard & Risk Maps (FHRMs) were to be drawn up for such areas. On this basis, Member States were to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by the end of 2015. This report assesses the FRMPs for the Netherlands. It assesses the FRMPs and Member State reporting to the European Commission in 2016. 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 ·Selected FRMPs: the Netherlands has reported four FRMPs. All four have been considered in the assessment.



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 Netherlands has designated four Units of Management (UoMs) under the Floods Directive, with one FRMP for each UoM. The four UoMs correspond to the River Basin Districts (RBDs) designated under the Water Framework Directive. 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. The table below gives an overview of the four UoMs in the Netherlands, 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) WISE – the FRMP as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML. Table 1Overview of UoMs in Netherlands UoM Name Number of APSFRs XML reported PDF Reported NLEM EMS No ASPFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes Yes NLMS MEUSE No ASPFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes Yes NLRN RHINE No ASPFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes Yes NLSC SCHELDT No ASPFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes Yes The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web page: · https://www.helpdeskwater.nl/onderwerpen/wetgeving-beleid/eu-richtlijn/overstromingsrisico/ 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 Netherlands has set common objectives for all FRMPs at national level for protection against floods, prevention of their consequences and for crisis management. Moreover, the FRMPs refer to long-standing Dutch legal requirements for flood protection, such as the national safety standards for flood protection works. FRM objectives relate to... ...the reduction of potential adverse consequences Strong evidence One common objective in the FRMPs is the prevention of the consequences of flooding. ...the reduction of the likelihood of flooding Strong evidence The FRMPs include a common objective to protect against flooding. Moreover, the FRMPs cite long-standing legal protection standards in the Netherlands, including new safety requirements for flood protection works. ...non-structural initiatives Strong evidence One of the three themes of the national objectives is crisis management. Moreover, an objective on prevention refers to limiting flood impacts via spatial planning. FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to... ...human health Some evidence The objectives themselves do not explicitly refer to human health, but they refer to national legal protection standards that do so (notably, the Delta Programme standard that the probability that an individual dies as a consequence of the risk of flooding must not exceed the 1:100.000 per year by 2050). Moreover, the FRMPs state that the objectives address human health. ...economic activity Some evidence The objectives do not explicitly refer to economic activity, though this is a key aim of flood risk management in the Netherlands, such as flood safety rules cited in the FRMPs. Moreover, the FRMPs state that the objectives refer to economic activity. ...environment Some evidence Although the objectives set out in the FRMPs do not refer directly to the environment, the FRMPs state that the objectives address this. Netherlands’ reporting sheets highlight that the National Water Plan includes a healthy ecosystem as part of its main goal.

Moreover, in the “Room for the River” approach, synergy is sought between flood risk reduction and environmental values, ...cultural heritage Some evidence The objectives themselves do not explicitly refer to cultural heritage, but the FRMP’s text indicates that this is addressed by the flood objectives. Measures have been... ...identified Strong evidence The Netherlands has reported 116 aggregated measures and no individual measures. The Netherlands has reported measures across all four aspects of flood risk management, with the majority of measures (68 of 116, 59 %) for protection. ...prioritised Strong evidence The Netherlands has reported high priority for 108 of its 116 measures, very high priority for four measures and moderate priority for four measures. Relevant aspects of Article 7 have been taken into account such as... ...costs & benefits Some evidence The four FRMPs assessed refer to cost benefit as a criterion for the establishment of priorities for the selection of measures. Specifically, they refer to the use of CBA for previous plans and programmes and indicate that the FRMPs were built on these results; however, details are lacking on the methodology and outcomes as well as the use of the previous CBA work in the FRMPs themselves. ...flood extent Strong evidence Flood extent is addressed in the digital maps, whose links are provided in each of the assessed FRMPs. ...flood conveyance Strong evidence A reference to conveyance routes is found in all four FRMPs. In particular, conveyance (afvoer van hoogwater) is mentioned throughout the Rhine FRMP (NLRN and also in the Meuse, which highlights that rivers need more space (so called Uiterwaarden) to allow the evacuation of water. ...water retention Strong evidence The Netherlands has had a long-standing programme to implement ‘Room for the River’, and measures are included in the FRMPs. ...environmental objectives of the WFD Some evidence There is a reference in each of the FRMPs that synergies with the objectives of WFD were sought in the measures. However, there is a lack of further evidence (e.g. FD measures that point explicitly towards contributing to the WFD) ...spatial planning/land use Strong evidence Spatial planning and land use is being considered in the FRMPs. (These aspects were already included in earlier programmes that formed the basis for the FRMPs.) ...nature conservation Some evidence All FRMPs state in general terms that synergies exist between flood protection and nature in the implementation of measures, though specific details are not provided. ...navigation/port infrastructure Some evidence All four FRMPs assessed make a brief reference that they take into consideration navigation and port infrastructure. ...likely impact of climate change Strong evidence The FRMPs provide information on potential climate impacts and contain measures that consider climate change. The FRMPs moreover underline that climate considerations are implicit in their overall approach to flood risk management. Coordination with other countries ensured in the RBD/UoM Strong evidence All four FRMPs refer to active coordination with neighbouring Member States, both within international river basin commissions as well as bilaterally. Coordination ensured with WFD Strong evidence The same authorities developed both the RBMPs and FRMPs, and the FRMPs indicate that coordination was ensured through several mechanisms, including the identification of synergies between measures. Active involvement of interested parties Some evidence The reporting sheets note that the FRMPs were developed on the basis of earlier plans and programmes, which themselves underwent a broad consultation with the public, NGOs, the private sector and government authorities. For this reason, government authorities were mainly involved in the actual development and drafting of the FRMPs.

Good Practices The assessment identified the following good practices in the Dutch FRMPs assessed. Table 3 Good practices in the Dutch FRMPs Topic area Good practices identified Integration of previously reported information in the FRMPs. Each of the FRMPs contains a separate document on international coordination, indicating how the Netherlands has coordinated with neighbouring Member States on flood risk areas. Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk. Common, national safety levels have been identified and are used to assess the safety of flood protection infrastructure and to guarantee the same level of safety for all citizens. Planning/implementing of measures and their prioritization for the achievement of objectives. The FRMPs provide a clear indication of funding sources for the measures, even though the overall budget is not provided. All measures are linked to one of the seven national objectives set for the FRMPs. The FRMPs include measures for spatial planning and natural water retention, continuing the work of the Netherlands in these approaches to flood risk management Consideration of climate change in the FRMPs assessed. The FRMPs provide an overview of projected climate impacts, include measures that address climate change or moreover indicate that climate is considered in the overall approach to flood risk management. Public participation. Two websites were created to raise awareness and provide public information on the FRMPs and related flood information, including the FHRMs. Areas for further development The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the Dutch FRMPs assessed. Table 4 Areas for further development in the Dutch FRMPs Topic area Areas identified for further development Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk. The objectives in the FRMPs are not specific or measurable, though the FRMPs refers to other national flood targets, such as the national safety levels, that are specific and measurable. The information on these earlier plans and policies is limited in the FRMPs and the FRMPs themselves do not describe the process for setting objectives, nor the links between their objectives and other existing in parallel policy objectives and targets for flood risk management in the Netherlands. Planning/implementation of measures and their prioritization for the achievement of objectives. The FRMPs do not contain detailed information on costs of measures in the UoM. Each FRMP describes in very general terms what the measures are trying to achieve, where they are to be achieved and how they are to be achieved: Consequently, the measures are not specific or measurable in terms of quantifiably contributing towards achieving the objectives set. The FRMPs provide brief information on the process for monitoring existing programmes, but do not clearly explain how the measures themselves will be monitored, nor indicate if a baseline is used. Use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in the FRMPs assessed. While the Netherlands undertook a detailed CBA for prior flood programmes, it is not clear from the FRMPs, or the reporting sheets, how this information was used for the FRMP’s measures and little information is provided on the methodology. Consideration of climate change in the FRMPs assessed. No reference in the FRMPs assessed to the national climate change adaptation strategy. Public participation. The FRMPs indicate that the public, NGOs and the private sector were not actively involved in their preparation, since previous flood programmes had employed broad consultation methods. Flood risk governance. Prior to the FRMPs, the Netherlands established programmes to address flood prevention and protection, such as the Delta Programmes and the Room for the River Programme. The FRMPs provide only limited information on these earlier programmes and on Dutch policy and legislation to address flood risks, with insufficient explanation to interpret the background and linkages between these prior and ongoing initiatives and the FRMP. Neither the FRMPs nor the reporting sheets indicate if an SEA was carried out for the 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, objectives should be defined in an as specific and measurable way as possible. The FRMPs should indicate whether a baseline is used for monitoring progress and if not elaborate one. ·The FRMPs should clearly describe their links with other prior and ongoing flood programmes and legislation in the Netherlands. The links between the FRMP’s objectives and those of other Dutch programmes and legislation for flood risk management should be clearly indicated, as should the process for developing the objectives. ·The FRMPs should provide information on the estimated costs of their measures as well as the links that measures may have with other flood risk programmes. ·The FRMPs should clearly indicate how an analysis of costs and benefits is used in selecting and prioritising their measures and provide a methodology of the approach. ·The FRMPs should provide clear information on the organisation of public participation and the active involvement of stakeholders. ·The FRMPs should indicate if a Strategic Environmental Assessment was carried out for related plans or programmes whose measures the FRMPs adopt. ·The coordination between the FRMPs and the national climate change adaptation strategy should be ensured or elaborated upon.





1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1Reporting of the FRMPs The Netherlands has reported four FRMPs. Each FRMP covers one of the four UoMs designated in the Netherlands. In addition, a national document was reported: this summarises the national objectives and common methodology used across the four UoMs. The Netherlands did not make use of Article 13.3 of the Floods Directive, which allowed Member States to make use of previous flood risk management plans for the first cycle (provided their content is equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive). 1.2Assessment of the FRMPs All four FRMPs in the Netherlands are assessed. Table 5 UoMs covered by Dutch FRMPs UoM code UoM Name NLEM EMS NLMS MEUSE NLRN RHINE NLSC SCHELDT

2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment The conclusions of the PFRA are presented in all four FRMPs assessed. This includes a summary map showing areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFRs). All FRMPs assessed had a textual description which includes tables listing the APSFRs. The Netherlands applied Art. 13.1b and has thus decided to prepare flood hazard and risk maps rather than carrying out a PFRA under the FD. All four FRMPs provide links to detailed flood risk maps that show the APSFRs: http://www.risicokaart.nl . A reference to conveyance routes is found in all four FRMPs. In particular, conveyance (afvoer van hoogwater) is mentioned throughout the Rhine FRMP (NLRN) and the Meuse FRMP, which highlight that rivers need more space (so called Uiterwaarden) to allow the evacuation of water. 2.1.1Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs For each of the assessed FRMPs, there is a separate document on international coordination, which summarises the flood risk areas identified in coordination with neighbouring Member States. While regular coordination is carried out in all four international UoMs, for the FRMP for the Ems UoM, a joint risk assessment with Germany concluded that coordination could focus on the main channel of the Ems and the estuary of Ems-Dollard (with yearly bilateral contacts), smaller water bodies did not pose risks. 2.1.2Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHR maps As noted above, the Netherlands applied Art. 13.1(b) of the Floods Directive and did not carry out a PFRA: The FRMPs indicate that flood risks were well known in all UoMs.





2.2Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs The flood hazard and flood risk maps are presented in all four FRMPs in overview maps for the UoM, showing seawater and fluvial flood hazards and risks. Each FRMP has a map section at the end of the document containing these maps. In none of the FRMPs do the FHRMs cover pluvial floods, groundwater floods, floods due to artificial water bearing infrastructure sources or floods from no specific sources. They do, however, include combined floods from seawater and fluvial sources. In addition, all four FRMPs provide links to the flood hazard and flood risk maps, on the web site www.risicokaart.nl , which is oriented towards providing public information. However, the link is to the main page and the FHRMs are difficult to find on this website. The maps are found on the page https://nederland.risicokaart.nl/risicokaart.html . 2.2.1Maps for shared flood risk areas Flood hazard and flood risk maps have been prepared for flood risk areas shared with other Member States. These maps are available in the international documents for each UoM. The latter are separate documents that are part of the national FRMPs: the international part is called part A of each FRMP, the national part is called part B. However, the maps provided in the documents are of low resolution. Three of the four FRMPs (the exception being the FRMP for the Ems) coordinated mapping in shared flood risk areas with neighbouring Member States. Joint maps have been provided for the international parts of the FRMPs. International coordination took place in all four UoMs. For the Ems international UoM, the FRMP indicates that coordination between Germany and the Netherlands mainly focused on the Ems River and its estuary of the Ems-Dollard. The Netherlands and Germany concluded that no further regular coordination was required on the common smaller tributaries of the Ems, as common areas with flood risks are absent there, due to the nature of the small transboundary rivers and canals which do not cross the border. 2.2.2Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps In all the FRMPs, Flood hazard and risk maps (FHRMs) have been used to develop the FRMPs. Based on the reporting sheets and the FRMPs assessed: ·The FHRMs were used to set priorities for flood risk management (e.g. locations, economic activities, assets) The Netherlands has a long-established water management, with a regular checking of the norms and standards for dykes. The preparation of FRMPs resulted in the identification of several streams outside low risk zones that do not have dykes (e.g. in Limburg, part of the Meuse UoM) and that can generate significant flood risks: this was identified as a gap and measures have been included in the FRMPs. 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 FRMP. Neither the FRMPs nor the reporting sheets referred to changes. 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 Netherlands: ·According to Art.6(5)(a) flood risk maps shall show the potential adverse consequences associated with flood scenario in terms of number of inhabitants affected. It appears that this information was not presented on all the maps assessed (even though habitable buildings have been reported in the area). ·Only fluvial floods have been mapped. It was not clear if the other sources are not considered as potential significant floods in the NL. Some of these areas for further development are explicitly addressed within the FRMPs assessed: ·Other flood sources are not considered as to pose significant risk.

·The map sections of each FRMP contain maps showing the number of affected inhabitants/hectare, but not the total number of inhabitants affected. The total number of inhabitants affected has been given in the explanatory text of the flood risk maps. ·The maps show floods from fluvial and seawater sources, as well as combined flooding from these two sources; other flood sources are not shown because they don’t present a significant risk. 2.5Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information The following good practice was identified: ·Each of the FRMPs contains a separate document on international coordination, indicating how the Netherlands has coordinated with neighbouring Member States on flood risk areas. · 3. Setting of Objectives 3.1Focus of objectives The FRMPs present seven common general objectives set at national level. These objectives cover three themes: (1) protection against floods, (2) prevention of the consequences and (3) crisis management. Across these themes, the Netherlands has set the following seven common objectives (doelen): Protection against floods 1.The Netherlands will continually go through cycles of standardisation and testing of flood defences and will introduce measures to meet the protection levels in legislation and regulations; 2.The Netherlands will take measures where necessary to address flood risks along waters without embankments; 3.The Netherlands will prepare for future developments that are important for protection against flooding; Prevention of the consequences 4.The Netherlands will limit the consequences of flooding via spatial planning choices; 5.The Netherlands prepares for future developments which are important for prevention of the consequences of flooding; Crisis management 6.Dutch crisis management will guarantee decisive and effective action before, during and after a flood disaster;

7.The Netherlands will prepare for future developments that are important for flood crisis management. The FRMPs provide information on current protection levels cited in the first objective. A 1/100-year protection level is required for flood protection infrastructure in the Netherlands (and water bodies without dykes, or other protection works, are assessed to check if works are needed to ensure this level of protection). The FRMPs also refer to the safety standard to be achieved by 2050: the risk of fatalities due to flooding should be no higher than 1 in 100,000 citizens per year. In addition, the Netherlands’ reporting sheets refer to the National Water Plan, which cites the safety standards such as the one described above. The National Water Plan calls for good protection from and prevention of flooding and against drought as well as achieving good water quality and a healthy ecosystem as a basis for well-being and prosperity. The objectives set in the four FRMPs: ·aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods; ·aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding; ·refer to non-structural measures. 3.2Specific and measurable objectives In the Netherlands, the FRMPs’ objectives are stated in general terms and do not indicate what they are trying to achieve (in a quantitative or measurable sense), where, when and how they are to be achieved. Nonetheless, the FRMPs also cite the national flood standards, such as the 2050 safety standard: these overall targets are specific and measurable. The Netherlands has linked each of its measures to one of the seven specific FRMP objectives (see section 4). 3.3Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods The objectives set in the Netherlands call for the prevention of the consequences of flooding. The FRMPs moreover state that the objectives address the four elements cited in the Floods Directive: human health, economic activity, environment and cultural heritage . 3.4Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding The objectives call for protection to reduce flood risks, and they refer to the national safety standard target to ensure that flood related infrastructure protects against 1/100 year to 1/10.000 floods for regional flood defences and 1/250 to 1/10.000 for primary flood defenses. 3.5Process for setting the objectives While the FRMPs provide an overview of flood risk management in the Netherland and cite existing legislation and standards, neither the four FRMPs nor the reporting sheets submitted by the Netherlands provide information on the process for setting the FRMPs’ objectives. 3.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives The following good practice was identified: ·Common, national safety levels have been identified and are used to assess the safety of flood protection infrastructure and to guarantee the same level of safety for all inhabitants. The following areas for further development were identified:

·The objectives in the FRMPs itself are not specific or measurable, although the FRMPs refer to other national flood targets, such as the national safety levels, that are. ·The information on these earlier plans and policies is limited in the FRMPs and the FRMPs themselves do not describe the process for setting objectives, nor the links between their objectives and existing policy objectives and targets for flood risk management in the Netherlands.

4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives The Netherlands has reported 116 aggregated measures and no individual measures (neither the FRMPs nor the reporting sheets define aggregated measures). The Netherlands has reported measures across all four aspects of flood risk management, though the majority are for protection: ·28 measures are for preparedness (24 % of the total 116 measures) ·12 measures are for prevention (10 %) ·68 are for protection (59 %) ·eight measures are for recovery and review (7 %) While the number of measures reported per UoM ranges from 25 to 33 measures, each UoM has seven preparedness measures, three prevention measures and two recovery and review measures: consequently, only the protection measures vary across the four UoMs (see Table A1 in Annex A for further details). The Netherlands is well-known as a low-lying country that has historically placed a high priority initially on flood protection and later on flood risk management. The four FRMPs refer to and build on recent and ongoing national programmes and legislation for flood risk management, and in particular: 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; 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 states that dykes and dunes should provide protection so that the risk of fatalities is no higher than 1 in 100,000 per year. It appears that most of the measures in the FRMPs are linked to actions decided under prior programmes or policies. For example, most of the measures included in the Meuse FRMP originate from other policies and plans, including the Meuse Works Programme, the restoration of Stone Cladding on the Oosterschelde and the Westerschelde (under the Delta Programme) and the Room for the River Programme. The description of the measures in the FRMP indicates their original policies and programmes. 4.1Cost of measures The Netherlands did not report information on the costs of individual measure, nor on the overall budgets for the FRMPs’ measures, nor is there any information on these in the FRMPs. 4.2Funding of measures The FRMPs provide an overview of key sources of funding, in particular for flood protection infrastructure. The management and maintenance of existing dykes is funded by taxes paid to the regional water management authorities (waterschappen). The national government manages flood protection infrastructure along the main rivers and the coast, providing funding from the general budget (approximately EUR 1 billion per year). The construction of new flood protection infrastructure is funded in more or less equal shares by the national government (via the Delta Fund, Deltafonds) and by the regional water management authorities (waterschappen). The Delta Fund has allocated funding until 2028. The FRMPs report that the Netherlands follow the principle that new investments can only be funded if the projects follow an integrated approach in the management of the flood risks, and take into consideration new safety standards, new technical insights and soil subsidence. Table 6 Funding of measures All UoMs 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 Source: FRMPs

4.3Measurable and specific (including location) measures Each FRMP describes in only general terms what the measures are trying to achieve, where they are to be achieved and how they are to be achieved. The FRMPs include indicators for the measures; however, in most cases these are “effort” indicators that record the completion of the measure on the basis of indicators (which measures are associated to objectives), but do not translate the completion of measures into impacts in terms of flood risk reduction objectives (see examples of indicators below under “Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP”). In terms of location (see also Table A3 of Annex A), Netherlands has reported that measures will be carried out at UoM level, with some in two or three UoMs and many in all four UoMs. Table 7 Location of measures All UoMs assessed 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 In its reporting, the Netherlands has associated each measure to one of the seven common national objectives (see section 3 for the objectives): ·63 measures, all for protection, address objective 1 on protection levels of flood defences (54 % of all measures across all aspects) ·one measure for protection addresses objective 2 on unprotected waters, i.e. currently without flood defences (1 % of all measures) ·four protection measures, one in each UoM, address objective 3 on preparing for future developments that will be important for protection (4 % of all measures) ·eight prevention measures, two in each UoM, address objective 4 to limit the consequences of flooding via spatial planning (7 % of all measures) ·four prevention measures, one in each UoM, address objective 5 on future developments that will be important for prevention (4 % of all measures) ·24 measures (16 for preparedness and eight for recovery and review – of which four preparedness and two recovery and review in each of the four UoMs) address objective 6 on guaranteeing decisive and effective crisis management (21 % of all measures) ·12 preparedness measures, three in each UoM, address objective 7 on future developments that are important for flood crisis management. For further details, please see Tables A5 and A6 in Annex A. As the three themes and the seven common national objectives are not specific and measurable, it is not clear by how much the measures will contribute to their achievement. The FRMPs moreover state that the measures are designed to work towards the new safety standards set in the Netherlands for 2050, in particular by strengthening existing infrastructure and building new flood protection infrastructure. It is not stated, however, if the implementation of the measures in the four FRMPs will by themselves achieve this target. The FRMPs state that flood protection infrastructure has top priority and goes through a cycle of establishing safety standards, assessing the compliance to these standards and if necessary strengthening the infrastructure. The measures are directed towards this goal.





4.5Geographic coverage/scale of measures The Netherlands has reported information on the location of all measures (see Table A4 of Annex A): ·All 28 preparedness measures will be undertaken across all four UoMs (i.e. at national scale) ·All 12 prevention measures will be undertaken across all four UoMs ·All eight recovery and review measures will be undertaken across all four UoMs ·The great majority of protection measures (52 of the 68, 76 %) are also undertaken across all four UoMs ·7 protection measures (10 % of the 68 total) are undertaken in only one UoM, either the Meuse, Rhine or Scheldt ·6 protection measures (9 % of the 68) are undertaken in both the Meuse and the Rhine UoMs ·three protection measures (4 %) are under in all three of these UoMs (Meuse, Rhine and Scheldt) The FRMPs, however, provide a slightly different picture, indicating that measures are formulated on the national scale and will be implemented in the specific contexts of each UoM. 4.6Prioritisation of measures The Netherlands has reported the priority for its 116 measures. Of these, nearly all – 108 out of 116 (93 %) – are reported as high priority. Four protection measures (3 % of the total) are indicated as very high priority) and four prevention measures are indicated as moderate priority. The FRMPs indicate that the priority of measures is based upon the flood risks assessed, and measures are being implemented based upon the severity of flood risks. If a flood risk assessment (i.e. a regular check against legal standards) shows that if flood protection infrastructure is no longer compliant, then it is a legal priority to improve it. The FRMPs mention that all measures are of priority. It is reported in the FRMPs of the UoMs that a CBA has been elaborated by the government’s Central Planning Bureau (CPB) for the Room for the River Programme 10 years ago, working further on earlier work of the Delta Commission. This analysis was the basis, in combination with individual risks (casualties, group risks) for the decisions on prioritisation of measures. The norms for regional dykes were to address a 1/100 year flood or more stringent. The earlier econometric analysis (CBA) used by the CPB and the Delta Commission form, in addition to individual risks (casualties, group risks), the basis for the 2014 Delta Decision on Water Safety. According to the FRMPs, the prioritisation of protection measures was based upon this decision. It is not clear, however, how these prior analyses influenced the prioritisation of the FRMPs’ measures. The Netherlands did not report on the exact timetable of the measures, and this information is not clearly provided in the FRMPs. The FRMPs state that the measures (e.g. flood infrastructure) are subjected to a cycle of assessment, reporting and compliance; however, the FRMPs do not specify the timing of this cycle. 4.7Authorities responsible for implementation of measures The FRMPs indicate that there are four levels of responsible authorities: the national water authority (Rijkwaterstaat, part of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment); the regional water authorities (Waterschappen); the provinces and municipalities. In addition, the safety regions, managed by municipalities, play a key role. On protection measures: ·The Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment is responsible for policy, norms and certain primary and regional dykes; ·The regional water authorities are responsible for most primary and most regional dykes;

·Provinces are responsible for water policy and norms in their territories. On prevention measures: ·The Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment is responsible for policy; ·The Ministry of Security and Justice has overall responsibility at national level for crisis management; ·The provinces and municipalities are responsible for implementation in their territories, along with designated safety regions (veiligheidsregio’s). The responsible authorities for preparedness, for recovery and review measures are the Rijkswaterstaat, the regional water authorities and the municipalities (also in their roles in the safety regions). A full overview of the responsible authorities is available under www.helpdeskwater.nl . In its reporting, the Netherlands identifies one or more of these types of authorities as responsible for the measures reported (see Table A9 in Annex A): ·National authorities are responsible for 46 measures (40 % of the total); ·National authorities and the provinces are jointly responsible for 12 measures (10 %), all for protection; ·National authorities and the security regions, four measures (3 %), all for preparedness; ·National authorities and the water authorities, 13 measures (11 %), all for protection; ·National authorities, municipalities and the regional water authorities, four measures (3 %), all for prevention; ·National authorities, municipalities, water authorities and security regions, 24 measures (21 %); ·National authorities, provinces, municipalities and regional water authorities, four measures (3 %), all for prevention; ·Regional water authorities, 13 measures (11 %), all for protection. 4.8Progress of implementation of measures The Netherlands reported the progress of its 116 measures: ·8 of the 116 were reported as not started (7 %) – all are recovery and review measures; ·35 as ongoing construction (30 %) – all are protection measures;

·73 as progress ongoing (63 %) – these include all 12 prevention measures, all 28 preparedness measures and the remaining 33 protection 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 Netherlands did not report this information for its measures. Nonetheless, the reporting sheets indicate that the objectives for FRMPs and RBMPs are partly overlapping, which offers opportunities for synergies. The FRMPs do not mention measures under other EU legislation. 4.10Specific groups of measures The FRMPs include spatial planning and land use measures. An example of a spatial planning measure is the application of the ‘Water Check’ (Watertoets): an assessment of the implications of spatial plans for flood risk management in an early phase of their development. Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in all four FRMPs. These continue the approach established in the Netherlands in the national initiative, Room for the River Programme, developed ten years ago and largely completed by 2016. Some measures in the Meuse (NLMS) and Rhine (NLRN) FRMPs were designed under this plan. An example of such a measure that include providing more space for the river is the measure for broadening of the area between the dikes of the Meuse River (Maasverruiming). A further measure includes creating more space for water flow within the floodplain of the Meuse by removing soil and creating channels. The FRMPs do not include measures that specifically consider nature conservation, though work for Room for the River should support nature conservation. In addition, all FRMPs state in general terms that synergies exist between flood protection and nature in the implementation of measures, though specific details are not provided. All four FRMPs assessed make a brief reference that they take into consideration navigation and port infrastructure. In general, it is stated that the policy on flood protection always uses an integral approach, and ports and navigation are a part of this. However, no specific measures were identified. No reference has been found in the FRMPs to dredging to increase the river channel capacity and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation purposes. There is a measure in all FRMPs on maintenance of the river channels (Management and maintenance of the riverbed) which aims to guarantee a fluent evacuation of flood peaks. 4.11Recovery from and resilience to flooding Neither the FRMPs nor the reporting sheets contain a reference to insurance policy. The FRMPs do mention, however, that the government covers costs in case of flood damage during a disaster, though specific details are not provided. 4.12Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP The reporting sheets indicate that many existing measures have already undergone a process of regular monitoring and reporting. The FRMP explains that regional water authorities and national water authorities have to report on the progress of their tasks (once a year) and about the progress of large programmes (twice a year). For example, the Delta Commission makes a yearly report on progress under the Delta Programme. The reporting sheets state that the Netherlands will make use of these existing reports for the Floods Directive reporting to the European Commission. Reporting is done based upon a list of indicators for the measures. These are provided in Annex 2 of each FRMP. For example, ·For the measure to manage and maintain flood protection infrastructure (Beheren en onderhouden - B&O keringen), the indicator is: Measure developed yes/no and qualitative description; ·For the measure on a programme to repair the stone protection of dykes in Zeeland, the indicator is the finalisation of the programme (yes/no). Information on a baseline is not found in the FRMPs. 4.13Coordination with the Water Framework Directive The table below shows how the development of the FRMP has been coordinated with the development of the second River Basin Management Plan of the WFD.

Table 8 Coordination of the development of the FRMPs with the development of the second River Basin Management Plans of the WFD All UoMs Integration of FRMP and RBMP Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMPs and RBMPs ✔ Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD The objectives of the Floods Directive were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a ✔ Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in the FRMP ✔ The RBMP PoM includes win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and NWRMs a ✔ Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence maintenance or construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and RBMPs ✔ Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included ✔ Consistent and compliant application of WFD Article 4(7) and designation of heavily modified water bodies with measures taken under the FD e.g. flood defence infrastructure The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, have been adapted to take into account WFD Environmental Objectives a ✔ The use of sustainable drainage systems, such as the construction of wetland and porous pavements, have been considered to reduce urban flooding and also to contribute to the achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD The responsible authorities for the implementation of the WFD and the Floods Directive are the same in all UoMs. Moreover, the FRMPs indicate that synergies exist between measures under the RBMPs and FRMPs, in particular for spatial measures as well as NWRMs, such as measures related to Room for the River, under the FRMPs are especially valuable for synergies with environmental objectives under the WFD, without, however, going into more detail. The FRMPs and RBMPs in the Netherlands both are under the aegis of the National Water Plan 2016-2021, which calls for a comprehensive approach for water management, encompassing flooding, water quality and water use. 4.14Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures The following good practices were identified: ·The FRMPs provide a clear indication of funding sources for the measures, even though the overall budget is not provided. ·All measures are linked to one of the seven national objectives set out for the FRMPs. ·The FRMPs include measures for spatial planning and room for the river, continuing the work of the Netherlands in these approaches to flood risk management. The following areas for further development were identified: ·The FRMPs do not contain concrete information on costs of measures in the UoM. ·Each FRMP describes in only general terms what the measures are trying to achieve, where they are to be achieved and how they are to be achieved: consequently, while the measures are linked to the objectives, they are not specific or measurable in terms of a quantifiable contribution towards an objective. ·It appears that many measures in the FRMPs are linked to actions under existing flood programmes, but the FRMPs do not clearly indicate these links. ·The FRMPs provide information on monitoring for existing programmes, but do not clearly explain how their measures will be monitored, nor indicate if a baseline is used.



5. Consideration of climate change All FRMPs assessed have measures included that consider climate change. The FRMPs note that climate change scenarios were analysed by the Delta Commission, and indeed the Delta Programme was launched to address potential climate impacts. The timeframes that were used are 2050 and 2100. Climate change scenarios included a slow and fast climate change scenario and are based upon the IPCC scenarios. The impacts of climate change were examined at the national scale for all UoMs. Based on the scenarios, it is expected that extreme events will occur more frequently due to climate change. This affects the statistical calculation of recurrence times and affect the norms to which dykes have to adhere, implying more stringent requirements for dykes. The FRMPs do not indicate, however, if the main sources of flooding are expected to change under long term climate change scenarios. The FRMPs do not refer to the national Climate Change Adaption Strategy, which was adopted in 2016, after their publication.

Several measures in the FRMPs specifically refer to climate change. One example is a measure for ‘Room for the River’ in the Meuse FRMP: increased peak levels of flooding due to climate change are considered in its design. The FRMPs moreover underline that climate considerations are implicit in their overall approach, as: ·Climate change is taken into consideration overall in Dutch flood risk management policies, programmes and planning; ·management is adaptive overall and ·there is a cyclical evaluation of norms and safety levels, and safety levels are re-evaluated regularly to cope with climate change (e.g. rising sea level and increased frequencies of floods). However, the assessed documents do not contain details on how these considerations are implemented, though it is clear that climate change is considered in other Dutch programmes and legislation for flood risk management. 5.1Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change The following good practice was identified: ·The FRMPs provide an overview of projected climate impacts, indicate that climate is considered in the overall approach to flood risk management and include measures that address climate change. The following areas for further development were identified: ·Coordination between FRMPs and national climate change adaptation strategy appears to be in need of strengthening.

6. Cost-benefit analysis The four FRMPs assessed refer to cost benefit as a criterion for the establishment of priorities for the selection of measures. It is not clear, however, if CBA was carried out specifically for the FRMPs: the plans in fact refer to the use of CBA of previous plans and programmes and details are lacking on the methodology and outcomes in the FRMP documents. The FRMPs note that the Central Planning Bureau carried out CBA for the 2008 Room for the River Programme. This analysis was also used by the Delta Commission. These earlier econometric analyses formed, together with further analysis, the basis for the 2014 Delta Decision on Water Safety (Deltabeslissing watersafety) to establish a 2050 goal to ensure that that the risk of fatalities due to flooding is not higher than 1 in 100,000 citizens per year. In the FRMPs, it is explained that the flood standards (including the new flood standard that the risk of fatalities due to flooding should be no higher than 1 in 100,000 citizens per year) have been based on CBA and that the flood standards are the basis for measures. It is unclear from the FRMPs or the reporting sheets whether and for which types of measures CBA was used. The FRMPs and reporting sheets also do not include whether CBA was used to assess measures with transnational effects, if any. 6.1Good practices and areas for further development The following area for further development was identified: ·While the Netherlands undertook detailed CBA for prior flood programmes, it is not clear from the FRMPs, or the reporting sheets, how this information was used in the FRMPs themselves.



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 Units of Management identified for the Floods Directive have not changed. The Netherlands has not reported new information to WISE since 2014 . 7.2Public information and consultation The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the four UoMs assessed 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 9 Methods used to inform the public and interested parties of the FRMPs All UoMs Media (papers, TV, radio) ✔ Internet ✔ Digital social networking Printed material Direct mailing Invitations to stakeholders Local Authorities ✔ Meetings Other * ✔ Note: * “Other” in the Netherlands refers to the national government’s official legal journal. The reporting sheets submitted by the Netherlands indicate that the FRMPs were available for consultation at local authorities and via the website. The announcement of the formal public consultation was made via the government’s official legal journal (the Staatscourant) and in newspapers. An information campaign was organised via two web sites: “our water” ( www.onswater.nl ), which covers both floods and water management; and “risk map” ( www.risicokaart.nl ), which provides information to the public on flood risks and other risks, including hazardous substances, fires and aviation accidents and also provides the FHRMs (users can obtain information on local risks by entering their address). The table below shows how the actual consultation was carried out: Table 10 Methods used for the actual consultation All UoMs Via Internet ✔ Via social networking Direct invitation Exhibitions Workshops, seminars or conferences Telephone surveys Direct involvement in drafting FRMP Postal written comments Other Source: FRMPs According to the reporting sheets, written comments could be submitted via Internet for a six-month period. The table below shows how the documents for the consultation were provided: Table 11 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 Other Source: FRMPs The FRMPs were available for consultation with at local authorities and on the internet for a period of six months.

7.3Active involvement of Stakeholders The table below shows the groups of stakeholders that were actively involved in the development of the four FRMPs assessed: Table 12 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 issues (e.g. children, housing) Consumer Groups Local / Regional authorities ✔ Academia / Research Institutions Source: FRMPs The Dutch reporting sheets note that the FRMPs were developed on the basis of earlier plans and programmes that had undergone broad-based consultations with the public, NGOs, the private sector and government authorities. For this reason, government authorities were mainly involved in the actual development and drafting of the FRMPs. Consequently, it appears that the public, NGOs and the private sector were not actively involved in the drafting. The FRMPs and reporting sheets do not provide details on how public authorities or stakeholders were actively involved. 7.4Effects of consultation The reporting sheets indicate only that adaptations to the FRMPs were made where necessary in response to the consultation. The reporting sheets state that the comments and how they were considered were summarised in a document for each plan (Nota van Antwoord), but these documents were not found. 7.5Strategic Environmental Assessment Neither the FRMPs nor the reporting sheets indicate if an SEA was carried out for the FRMPs., 7.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding governance The following good practice was identified: ·Two web sites were created to raise awareness and provide public information on the FRMPs and related flood information, including the FHRMs. The following areas for further development were identified: ·The FRMPs indicate that the public, NGOs and the private sector were not actively involved in their preparation, since previous flood programmes had employed broad consultation methods. ·Neither the FRMPs nor the reporting sheets indicate if an SEA was carried out for the FRMPs.

· Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures provided by the Netherlands in the reporting sheets. These tables and charts were used for the preparation of section 4 on measures.

Background & method This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs). The tables and charts below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the Member States and were used by the Member State assessor to complete the questions on the Flood measures. The data are extracted from the XMLs (reporting sheets) reported by Member States for each FRMP, and are split into the following sections: ·Measures overview – Tabulates the number of measures for each UoM; ·Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; ·Measures details: name & location – Location & geographic coverage; ·Measure details: authorities – Name of responsible authority & level of responsibility; ·Measure details: objectives – Objectives, Category of priority & Timetable; ·Measure details: progress – Progress of implementation & Progress description; ·Measure details: other – Other Community Acts. On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive), not all fields are mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields. Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers – for example, progress is measured via the categories set out in the Reporting Guidance. This means that producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort. For many fields, however, a free data format was used. For some Member States, this resulted in thousands of different answers, or answers given in the national language. In such situations, tables and charts were developed using the following steps: ·A first filter is applied to identify how many different answers were given. If a high number of different answers are given, Member State 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 A3: Location of implementation by measure aspect Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A4: Location of implementation by UoM Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A5: Objectives by measure aspect Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A6: Objectives by measure aspect Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect Figure A8 - Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by UoM Figure A9 - Visualisation of Table A9: Level of responsibility by measure aspect Figure A10 - Visualisation of Table A10: Level of responsibility by UoM Figure A11 - Visualisation of Table A11: Progress of implementation by measure aspect Figure A12 - Visualisation of Table A12: Progress of implementation by UoM Table A1 - Total number of measures Table A2 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM Table A3 - Location of implementation by measure aspect Table A4 - Location of implementation by UoM Table A5 - Objectives by measure aspect

Table A6 - Objectives by UoM Table A7 - Category of priority by measure aspect Table A8 Category of priority by UoM Table A9 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect Table A10 - Level of responsibility by UoM Table A11 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect Table A12 – Progress of implementation by UoM Measures overview Table A1 - Total number of measures Number of individual measures 0 Number of individual measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 0 Number of aggregated measures 116 Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 116 Total number of measures 116 Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 116 Range of number of measures between UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type (Min-Max) 25 - 33 Average number of measures across UoMs 29 Table A2 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM Preparedness Prepared-ness

Total Prevention Prevention Total Protection Protection Total Recovery & review Recovery & review Total Grand Total M41 M42 M43 M21 M24 M31 M32 M33 M35 M51 M53 NLEM 1 2 4 7 1 2 3 10 3 13 1 1 2 25 NLMS 1 2 4 7 1 2 3 4 1 12 4 21 1 1 2 33 NLRN 1 2 4 7 1 2 3 2 2 11 4 19 1 1 2 31 NLSC 1 2 4 7 1 2 3 1 11 3 15 1 1 2 27 Grand Total 4 8 16 28 4 8 12 6 4 44 14 68 4 4 8 116 Average per UoM 1 2 4 7 1 2 3 2 1 11 4 17 1 1 2 29 Notes: The codes used are explained in section 2 of this document. All measures are aggregated as the Netherlands did not report any individual measures.



The information in Table A2 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect Notes:

All measures are aggregated as the Netherlands did not report any individual measures. Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect Notes: All measures are aggregated as the Netherlands did not report any individual measures. Measure details: cost Member States were requested to report information on: ·Cost (optional field); ·Cost explanation (optional field). The Netherlands did not report any information on cost 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 Table A3 - Location of implementation by measure aspect Meuse (NLMS) Rhine (NLRN) Schelde (NLSC) Rhine (NLRN), Meuse (NLMS) Rhine (NLRN), Meuse (NLMS), Schelde (NLSC) Rhine (NLRN), Meuse (NLMS), Schelde (NLSC), Eems (NLEM) Grand Total Preparedness 28 28 Prevention 12 12 Protection 4 2 1 6 3 52 68 Recovery & Review 8 8 Grand Total 4 2 1 6 3 100 116

Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A3: Location of implementation by measure aspect Table A4 - Location of implementation by UoM Meuse (NLMS) Rhine (NLRN) Rhine (NLRN), Meuse (NLMS) Rhine (NLRN), Meuse (NLMS), Schelde (NLSC) Rhine (NLRN), Meuse (NLMS), Schelde (NLSC), Eems (NLEM) Schelde (NLSC) Grand Total NLEM 25 25 NLMS 4 3 1 25 33 NLRN 2 3 1 25 31 NLSC 1 25 1 27 Grand Total 4 2 6 3 100 1 116 Average per UoM 1 1 2 1 25 0 29 Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A4: Location of implementation by UoM Geographic coverage The geographic coverage for each measure was “RBD”. 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 objectives reported for each measure are differentiated by the objective (Doel) they correspond to. The table below presents the measures in terms of the seven common national objectives they address. These objectives are the following: 1.The Netherlands continually goes through cycles of standardization and testing of flood defences and introduces measures if necessary for protection levels in legislation and regulations;

2.The Netherlands will take measures where necessary to address flood risks along unprotected waters; 3.The Netherlands will prepare for future developments that are important for protection against flooding; 4.The Netherlands limits the consequences of flooding via spatial planning choices 5.The Netherlands prepares for future developments which are important for prevention of the consequences of flooding; 6.Dutch crisis management guarantees decisive and effective action before, during and after a (threatening) flood disaster; 7.The Netherlands will prepare for future developments that are important for flood crisis management. Table A5 - Objectives by measure aspect Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Objective 6 Objective 7 Grand Total Prevention 8 4 12 Protection 63 1 4 68 Preparedness 16 12 28 Recovery & Review 8 8 Grand Total 63 1 4 8 4 24 12 116 Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A5: Objectives by measure aspect Table A6 - Objectives by UoM Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Objective 6 Objective 7 Grand Total NLEM 12 1 2 1 6 3 25 NLMS 19 1 1 2 1 6 3 33 NLRN 18 1 2 1 6 3 31 NLSC 14 1 2 1 6 3 27 Grand Total 63 1 4 8 4 24 12 116 Average per UoM 16 0 1 2 1 6 3 29 Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A6: Objectives by measure aspect Category of priority The Netherlands provided information for the priority of all measures. The following categories are used in the reporting sheet: ·Critical; ·Very high;

·High; ·Moderate; ·Low.

Table A7 - Category of priority by measure aspect Very high High Moderate Grand Total Prevention 8 4 12 Protection 4 64 68 Preparedness 28 28 Recovery & Review 8 8 Grand Total 4 108 4 116 Notes: No measures were categorised as either low or critical. Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect Notes: No measures were categorised as either low or critical. Table A8 - Category of priority by UoM Moderate High Very high Grand Total NLEM 1 23 1 25 NLMS 1 31 1 33 NLRN 1 29 1 31 NLSC 1 25 1 27 Grand Total 4 108 4 116 Average per UoM 1 27 1 29 Notes: No measures were categorised as either low or critical. Figure 8 - Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by UoM Timetable No information has been reported on the timetable in the reporting sheets. Measure details: authorities

Member States were requested to report information on: ·Name of the responsible authority (optional if ‘level of responsibility’ is reported); ·Level of responsibility (optional if ‘name of the responsible authority’ is reported).



Table A9 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect N N & P N & security region N and water board N, M, & water board N, M, water board, & safety region N, P, M, & water board Water board Other Grand Total Prevention 4 4 4 12 Protection 34 12 8 13 1 68 Preparedness 8 4 16 28 Recovery & Review 8 8 Grand Total 46 12 4 8 4 24 4 13 1 116 Notes: N = national P = province M = municipality Figure A9 - Visualisation of Table A9: Level of responsibility by measure aspect

Table A10 - Level of responsibility by UoM N N & P N & security region N & water board N, M & water board N, M, waterboard, &security region N, P, M, & water board Water board Other Grand Total NLEM 8 3 1 2 1 6 1 3 25 NLMS 14 3 1 2 1 6 1 4 1 33 NLRN 14 3 1 2 1 6 1 3 31 NLSC 10 3 1 2 1 6 1 3 27 Grand Total 46 12 4 8 4 24 4 13 1 116 Average per UoM 12 3 1 2 1 6 1 3 0 29 Notes: N = national P = province M = municipality Figure A10 - Visualisation of Table 10: 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 State reported and whose answers are not analysed here. The Netherlands 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 A11 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect Not Started Ongoing Construction Progress ongoing Grand Total Prevention 12 12 Protection 35 33 68 Preparedness 28 28 Recovery & Review 8 8 Grand Total 8 35 73 116 Figure A11 - Visualisation of Table A11: Progress of implementation by measure aspect Table A12 – Progress of implementation by UoM Not started Ongoing construction Progress ongoing Grand Total NLEM 2 6 17 25 NLMS 2 12 19 33 NLRN 2 10 19 31 NLSC 2 7 18 27 Grand Total 8 35 73 116 Average per UoM 2 9 18 29 Figure A12 - Visualisation of Table A12: Progress of implementation by UoM The categories describing the progress of measures are defined in the EU Reporting Guidance Document on the Floods Directive. For measures involving construction or building works (e.g. a waste water treatment plant, a fish pass, a river restoration project, etc.): ·Not started (NS) means the technical and/or administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have not started. ·Progress on-going (POG) means that administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have started but are not finalised. The simple inclusion in the RBMPs is not considered planning in this context. ·On-going construction (OGC) means the construction or building works have started but are not finalized. ·Completed (COM) means the works have been finalised and the facilities are operational (maybe only in testing period in case e.g. a waste water treatment plant). For measures involving advisory services (e.g. training for farmers): ·Not started (NS) means the advisory services are not yet operational and have not provided any advisory session yet. ·Progress on-going (POG) means the advisory services are operational and are being used. This is expected to be the situation for all multi- annual long/mid-term advisory services that are expected to be operational during the whole or most of RBMP cycle. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means an advisory service that has been implemented and has been finalised, i.e. is no longer operational. This is expected only for advisory services that are relatively short term or one-off, and which duration is time limited in relation to the whole RBMP cycle. For measures involving research, investigation or studies: ·Not started (NS) means the research, investigation or study has not started, i.e. contract has not been signed or there has not been any progress. ·Progress on-going (POG) means the research, investigation or study has been contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means the research, investigation or study has been finalised and has been delivered, i.e. the results or deliverables are available (report, model, etc.). For measures involving administrative acts (e.g. licenses, permits, regulations, instructions, etc.): ·Not started (NS) means the administrative file has not been opened and there has not been any administrative action as regards the measure. ·Progress on-going (POG) means an administrative file has been opened and at least a first administrative action has been taken (e.g. requirement to an operator to provide information to renew the licensing, request of a permit by an operator, internal consultation of draft regulations, etc.). If the measure involves more than one file, the opening of one would mean already “ongoing”. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license or permit has been issued; the regulation has been adopted, etc.). If the measure involves more than one administrative act, “completed” is achieved only when all of them have been concluded.