EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 62 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans – Member State: Belgium Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on 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) 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 4.14 Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures

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 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 (SEA) 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



Acronyms APSFR Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis EEA European Environment Agency FD Floods Directive FHRM Flood Hazard & 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 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 Belgium. 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: five of Belgium’s seven FRMPs were reviewed. The assessment identified at least one FRMP from each of Belgium’s three regions, as each region was expected to follow a different approach for its plans. The selection included the three FRMPs for the Scheldt/Schelde/Escaut international basin, to understand if there had been cooperation for this basin that crosses all three Belgian regions. The following FRMPs were chosen: oThe only FRMP for the Brussels Region for the Scheldt/Schelde/Escaut Unit of Management (UoM) in Brussels oIn Flanders, the FRMPs for Scheldt/Schelde UoM and for the Meuse/Maas UoM. oIn the Walloon Region, the FRMPs for this region’s part of the Rhine UoM and the Scheldt/Escaut UoM.



o Overview Figure 1 Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts (RBDs) 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 Belgium has designated seven UoMs. These correspond to the seven of the eight RBDs designated under the Water Framework Directive (WFD).The eighth RBD is for Belgium’s North Sea coastal waters; it does not cover the coastline itself and consequently it is not covered under the FD. In Belgium, there is one FRMP for each UoM. Belgium has reported seven UoMs: there are three for the Scheldt River basin, one in the Brussels-Capital Region (BEEscaut_Schelde_BR), one in the Flanders Region (BESchelde_VL), and one in the Walloon Region (BEEscaut_RW); the Meuse River basin has UoMs, one in Flanders (BEMaas_VL) and one in Wallonia (BEMeuse_RW); there is one UoM for the Belgian part of the Rhine basin (BERhin_RW) and one for the Belgian part of the Seine (BESeine_RW). Consequently, there are three Belgian UoMs for the Scheldt international basin, one in each Belgian region, and two for the Meuse international basin, one each in the Flanders and Walloon Regions. The FRMPs prepared in Flanders and the FRMP prepared for Brussels have been integrated into the corresponding RBMPs; each plan has a single Programme of Measures (PoM), covering both WFD and FD measures. Wallonia follows a different approach and the FRMPs and RBMPs are separate documents. In this report, the plans are referred to collectively as FRMPs, even though some are integrated with the RBMPs. The FRMPs were adopted at regional level: ·In the Brussels Region, the Water Management Plan incorporating the FRMP was approved on 26 January 2017. ·In the Flanders Region, all RBMPs (containing the FRMPs) were adopted on 18 December 2015 and published on 2 March 2016. ·In the Walloon Region, the FRMPs were approved by the regional government on 10 March 2016. The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in Belgium, including the UoM code, the name, and the number of APSFRs reported (Belgium applied Art. 13(1)(b) of the FD and did not designate APSFRs – see Section 2 for further information). 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 1Overview of UoMs in Belgium UoM Name Number of APSFRs XML reported PDF Reported BEEscaut_RW SCHELDT (Walloon Region) No APSFRs assigned

(Art. 13(1)(b) applied) Yes Yes BEEscautSchelde_BR SCHELDT (Brussels Region) No APSFRs assigned

(Art. 13(1)(b) applied) Yes Yes BEMAAS_VL Meuse (Flanders Region) No APSFRs assigned

(Art. 13(1)(b) applied) Yes Yes BEMeuse_RW MEUSE (Walloon Region) No APSFRs assigned

(Art. 13(1)(b) applied) Yes Yes BERhin_RW Rhine (Walloon Region) No APSFRs assigned (Art. 13(1)(b) applied) Yes Yes BESchelde_VL Scheldt (Flanders Region) No APSFRs assigned (Art. 13(1)(b) applied) Yes Yes BESeine_RW Seine (Walloon Region) No APSFRs assigned (Art. 13(1)(b) applied) Yes Yes The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web pages: ·Brussels-Capital Region: https://leefmilieu.brussels/themas/water/waterbeheerplan

·Flanders Region: http://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/nl/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen-2016-2021/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen-voor-schelde-en-maas-2016-2021 ·Wallonia Region: http://environnement.wallonie.be/inondations/inondations_pgri_2016.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 Flood risk management objectives have been established Strong evidence All five FRMPs assessed contain flood risk management objectives. The overall objectives are set at regional level. Flood risk management objectives relate to... ...the reduction of potential adverse consequences Strong evidence This is included as an objective in each of the five FRMPs assessed and consequently in all three regions. In Flanders, there is a general objective for the reduction of flood risk and damage; in Wallonia, there is a strategic objective to limit damage to persons and property; and in Brussels, reducing damage from floods is a strategic objective. ...to the reduction of the likelihood of flooding Some evidence In the Brussels Region the objectives refer to the reduction in the likelihood of flooding. In the Flanders Region, the overall objective calls for the reduction of flood risk, thus incorporating reduction of the likelihood of flooding. In the Walloon Region, the operational objectives for river bed and floodplain initiatives should reduce flood likelihood. ...to non-structural initiatives Strong evidence The FRMPs assessed in the Walloon Region include objectives related to crisis management and safety and post-flood management. The FRMPs assessed in the Flanders and Brussels Regions refer to non-structural objectives including non-structural preventive and preparedness measures. Flood risk management objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to... ...human health Strong evidence In the Brussels Region, reducing harm to inhabitants is included in the strategic objective. The Flanders Region refers to protection for people in its overarching objective. The strategic objective of the Walloon Region refers to reducing harm to persons. ...economic activity Strong evidence In Brussels, the FRMP refers to the prevention of harm to buildings and infrastructure. In Flanders, the FRMPs have a general objective for reduction of flood risk and damage to economic activity. In Wallonia, the strategic objective includes the reduction of impacts on economic activity. ...environment Some evidence The overarching objective for the Flanders FRMPs refers to protection of the ecology. The FRMPs in Flanders also include a separate sub-objective on preventing flood risk and damage to the ecology. The strategic objective for the FRMPs in Wallonia refers to limiting harm to the environment; an operational objective takes into consideration natural habitats in their objectives related to river beds and floodplains. References to the environment are not found in the objectives for Brussels. ...cultural heritage Some evidence In Flanders, protecting cultural heritage is cited in the overarching objective. In Wallonia, the strategic objective refers to the reduction of negative impacts on cultural heritage. Cultural heritage is not explicitly mentioned in the objectives of the FRMP of Brussels. Measures have been... ...identified Strong evidence Belgium has reported measures for all of its UoMs, and the FRMPs assessed provide information on their measures. The number of measures reported varies across the three regions: 25 measures are reported for the one UoM in Brussels, 23 for the two UoMs in Flanders, and 620 for the four UoMs in Wallonia. (Measures reported for the Flanders region represent aggregated activities which are further specified in the plans via individual actions.) ...prioritised Strong evidence Belgium has indicated priorities for all 668 measures reported. All five FRMPs assessed provide information on the criteria used for prioritisation and refer to a process for the prioritisation of measures. Relevant aspects of Article 7 have been taken into account such as... ...costs & benefits Some evidence There are references in the assessed FRMPs indicating that a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) has been done, except for Brussels, but details are limited in the FRMPs or in background documents on the methodology and outcomes. In Wallonia, the CBA corresponds to the second criterion of the multi-criteria analysis included in the FRMPs. ...flood extent Strong evidence Maps showing flood extent are available for all FRMPs assessed, and the plans indicate that this information was considered in the preparation of the FRMPs. ...flood conveyance No evidence No references to flood conveyance were found in any of the FRMPs assessed. ...water retention Strong evidence All five FRMPs assessed include natural water retention measures (NWRM). Examples include river restoration (found in FRMPs in all three regions), soil conservation measures in agriculture (found in the FRMPs assessed in the Walloon Region) and aquifer restoration (found in the FRMP for the Brussels Region). ...environmental objectives of the WFD Strong evidence As noted above, in the Flanders and Brussels Regions, the FRMPs and RBMPs are combined in common plans. Moreover, all five FRMPs assessed indicate that there was coordination with the environmental objectives of the WFD. ...spatial planning/land use Strong evidence All five FRMPs assessed include measures to address spatial planning and land use. In all three regions, the FRMPs set out measures to restrict building in areas subject to flooding. ...nature conservation Some evidence While each of the five plans assessed indicate that the objectives and measures take into consideration aspects of nature conservation (e.g. Natura 2000 areas), few details are provided. ...navigation/port infrastructure Strong evidence In Flanders, reduction of risk and damage to inland navigation is included in the objectives. For the Brussels and Walloon Regions, the FRMPs state that shipping has been taken into consideration, although specific details are not provided. ...likely impact of climate change Strong evidence All five FRMPs assessed indicate that climate change impacts were taken into account, though the extent of information varies. The FRMP for the Brussels Scheldt UoM identifies potential impacts of climate change and indicates that this was considered in the design of some measures. Coordination with other countries ensured in the RBD/UoM Strong evidence All five FRMPs refer to coordination within international commissions for the Meuse, Scheldt and Rhine, depending on the specific UoM, though details on coordination activities were not provided. Coordination ensured with WFD Strong evidence In Flanders and Brussels regions, the FRMPs are integrated within the RBMPs as a single plan. Across all five FRMPs assessed, coordination was seen, including joint consultation and reference to objectives. Active involvement of interested parties Strong evidence Interested parties were actively involved via a range of mechanisms, including workshops, technical meetings and advisory meetings. Good Practices The assessment identified the following good practices in the Belgian FRMPs assessed. Table 3 Good practices in the Belgian FRMPs Topic area Good practices identified Integration of previously reported information in the FRMPs. The plan for the Brussels Scheldt UoM includes an overview of historical data on flood damage and flood events. In Brussels, the online FHRMs were updated. In Flanders, there were updates to the online FHRMs in 2014 and 2017 with the inclusion of new information on flood events. In Wallonia, a new version of the FHRM was published, integrating remarks related to public inquiry and more recent data. Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk. The strategic objective for the Brussels Scheldt UoM is elaborated in detailed operational objectives; these in turn are linked to sub-actions, each of them is explained in specific terms: who, what and where. Planning/implementing of measures and their prioritisation for the achievement of objectives. For the FRMPs in the Walloon Region, ranges of cost estimates have been elaborated for all measures in the FRMPs assessed. All the FRMPs assessed contain land use and spatial planning measures and all include natural water retention measures. All five FRMPs assessed provided an overview of the method for monitoring progress of measures. For the regions of Flanders and Brussels-Capital, monitoring is carried out on a yearly basis. Consideration of climate change in the FRMPs assessed. The FRMP for the Brussels Scheldt UoM provides an analysis of climate change forecasts and their implications for water management, based upon a detailed background study. Cost benefit analysis The Flanders and Walloon FRMPs assessed included cost and benefit aspects among the criteria for the prioritisation of measures. Public consultation. In Flanders and Wallonia, stakeholders were involved via advisory groups. Flood risk governance. The integration of the FRMP and RBMP into one report in Flanders and Brussels aligns flood risk governance with other aspects of water management. Areas for further development The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the Belgian FRMPs assessed. Table 4 Areas for further development in the Belgian FRMPs

Topic area Areas for further development identified Planning/implementation of measures and their prioritisation for the achievement of objectives. The Brussels Scheldt FRMP does not provide information on the costs of flood measures; the FRMPs for the Walloon Region present ranges rather than specific cost levels. The Brussels Scheldt FRMP does not provide information on funding sources for measures. Use of CBA in the FRMPs assessed. The Brussels Scheldt plan does not refer to the use of CBA. Consideration of climate change in the FRMPs assessed. The Flemish FRMPs do contain a reference to the regional Flemish Adaptation Plan. There is no apparent coordination with the national climate change adaptation strategy. International issues in flood risk management. The FRMPs assessed provide limited information on coordination via international river basin commissions and bilaterally with neighbouring Member States. Flood risk governance There is only summary information available in the FRMPs on coordination in Belgium , for example on objectives and measures, between regions or at national level in shared river basins (i.e. the Scheldt and Meuse).



Recommendations Based on the reported information and the FRMPs assessed, the following recommendations are made to enhance flood risk management (not listed in any particular order): ·The FRMPs should provide an overview of the costs of their measures and the expected funding sources. ·The second FRMPs should provide a more detailed description of the expected impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods, based on the available studies. Coordination with the national climate change adaptation strategy should be ensured or elaborated upon in the FRMPs. ·Where relevant, the FRMPs should incorporate CBA for the prioritisation of measures that lend themselves to it and provide a clear description of the methodology used. ·The FRMPs should clearly describe the actions taken for international cooperation. ·The FRMPs should provide further information on coordination carried out within Belgium, in particular within the common river basins of the Meuse and the Scheldt, to ensure synergies in their objectives and measures.

· 1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1Reporting of the FRMPs Belgium has reported seven UoMs and seven FRMPs: there are three for the Scheldt international UoM, one in the Brussels Region (for the BEEscaut_Schelde_BR UoM), one in the Flanders Region (BESchelde_VL UoM), and one in the Walloon Region (BEEscaut_RW UoM); there are two FRMPs for the Meuse international UoM, one in Flanders (BEMaas_VL) and one in Wallonia (BEMeuse_RW); there is one FRMP for the Belgian part of the Rhine, found in the Walloon Region (BERhin_RW); and one for the Belgian part of the Seine, also in the Walloon Region (BESeine_RW). Belgium did not make use of Article 13.3 of the FD, which allowed Member States to make use of previous FRMPs for the first cycle (provided their content is equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive). 1.2Assessment of the FRMPs The selection of the FRMPs for assessment included plans from each of the three regions of Belgium: the Brussels-Capital region, Flanders and Wallonia. This was because each region was expected to follow a slightly different approach. The Scheldt basin FRMPs in all three regions were included to allow a comparison of approaches to flood risks. The following UoMs and FRMPs were chosen for review: Table 5 UoMs and FRMPs assessed in Belgium

UoM code UoM Name BEEscautSchelde_BR SCHELDT (Brussels region) BEMaas_VL MEUSE (Flanders region) BESchelde_VL SCHELDT (Flanders region) BERhin_RW RHINE (Walloon region) BEEscaut_RW SCHELDT (Walloon region)

2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment All three regions in Belgium applied Art. 13(1)(b) and decided not to perform a PFRA under the FD and include instead their whole territory in the maps and plans as Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk (APSFRs). The methodology to delineate flood risk areas is described in the FRMPs assessed. In Brussels, the delineation of flood risk areas was based upon historical information on flood events (point locations): these data were used as a starting point for calculations of areas of flood risk based on topography, soil, hardened surfaces and other factors. In Flanders, the flood hazard and flood risk maps were developed based upon a hydraulic model using a base map of the hydrographical network with a selection of water courses that pose a potentially significant flood risk. These potential risks were derived from the database with flood events from the Flanders Disaster Fund. In Wallonia, flood risk areas were designated using information from the field and hydraulic modelling. Due to applying Art. 13(1)(b), the five FRMPs assessed did not physically include summary maps showing individual APSFRs or other flood risk areas. For the same reason, none of the FRMPs assessed included a textual description or tables listing any APSFRs. All five FRMPs assessed contain links to online map portals showing flood risk areas. The two FRMPs assessed in Flanders include a link to maps of flood risk areas, which are: natural inundation areas (NOG), recently inundated areas (ROG) and inundation areas based upon models (MOG). The FRMPs assessed in Wallonia include links to maps of flood areas and maps of flood risks. The Brussels-Capital FRMP includes a link to maps of flood areas and flood risks . No reference to conveyance routes was found in the FRMPs assessed. 2.1.1Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs All five FRMPs assessed refer to coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs. The FRMPs state that this was organised within the respective international commissions for the Meuse, Scheldt and Rhine river basins. For the Scheldt, coordination took place with France and the Netherlands. For the Meuse, coordination took place with France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. However, no specific information was found in the FRMPs on how coordination activities were organised. None of the five FRMPs assessed mention APSFRs shared with neighbouring Member States. 2.1.2Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHR maps As mentioned earlier, a PFRA under the FD was not performed in Belgium. The FRMP for the Brussels Scheldt UoM reports that the FHR maps developed in 2013 used data from earlier assessments, including a rough localisation of flood damage in built-up areas. The 2013 FHR map was more accurate than the previous ones and included non-built areas as well. In Wallonia a flood hazard map which covers the entire territory has already existed since 2007. The development of the FHRMs was therefore based on these maps. No information was found in the reporting sheets or the FRMPs assessed for Flanders on the use of a preliminary flood risk analysis for the FHRMs. 2.2Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs The Belgian FRMPs provide links to flood hazard and flood risk maps developed at regional level. These links are: ·Brussels: http://www.leefmilieu.brussels/ https://environnement.brussels/thematiques/eau/leau-bruxelles/eau-de-pluie-et-inondation/cartes-inondations-pour-la-region ·Flanders: http://www.waterinfo.be/default.aspx?path=NL/Loketten/geoloket

The information provided via this link includes information on inundated areas, water depth, coastal currents and rise velocity. ·Wallonia: http://geoportail.wallonie.be The FRMP for the Brussels Scheldt UoM contains a map with historical inundation data and the FHRMs. The FRMPs assessed in Wallonia and Flanders do not contain FHRMs. 2.2.1Maps for shared flood risk areas As noted above, none of the FRMPs assessed identify flood risk areas shared with other Member States. 2.2.2Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps All five FRMPs assessed state that the FHRMs have been used in the development of the plans. Based on the reporting sheets and the FRMPs assessed, for all UoMs: ·FHRMs were used to set priorities for flood risk management (e.g. locations, economic activities, assets) ·Measures were defined based on the FHRMs. For the Flanders FRMPs assessed, the FHRMs provide details on locations at risk (e.g. number of inhabitants at risk): this information was included in the multicriteria analysis to identify priority measures. For the Brussels FRMP, the indicative number of potentially affected inhabitants is included in the FHRM with, for each flood category (high, medium, low or non-existent risk), a presentation of the indicative number of potentially affected inhabitants by district. This number is represented in different pie charts on the map. Nonetheless, the FRMPs do not describe the link between the FHRMs and the setting of objectives. The FRMP for the Flanders Scheldt UoM (BEScheldt_VL) includes Belgium’s coastline and considers flooding from the sea in the coastal area. 2.3Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas The assessment looked for information on changes in the identification of APSFRs since December 2011, or in the FHRMs since December 2013. The FRMPs did not indicate any changes to the APSFRs. The online FHRMs for Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia have nonetheless been regularly updated: for example, in Flanders, there were updates of the online maps in 2014 and 2017 with the inclusion of new information on flood events. In Brussels, the most recent map included data and information that had a finer resolution and was more accurate in the identification of extent of flood events. 2.4Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps The prior FHRM assessment identified the following areas for further development for Belgium: ·According to Article 6(3) of the FD, flood hazard maps should cover the geographical areas which could be flooded according to the following scenarios: low probability, medium probability (likely return period 100 years or more) and high probability, where appropriate. It appears that Brussels used 25-50 years as medium probability scenario. ·There is no clear distinction among flood sources in the FHRMs of Brussels and Flanders.

·For the Brussels Scheldt UoM, according to the FHRM assessment, the flood risk and hazard maps did not show water depth or level, nor the number of inhabitants which could be potentially affected, and climate change was not been included in the analysis. Two of these areas for further development have been partially addressed within the FRMPs assessed: ·In all the FRMPs, maps with low, medium and high probability have been provided either in the document itself or as separate annexes (e.g. for the Flanders Scheldt UoM, BESchelde_VL, as a separate Annex to the plan) or as a links. Wallonia amended the medium probability scenario to 100 years, in line with the Directive. ·For the Brussels Scheldt UoM (BEEscautSchelde_BR), the flood risk and hazard maps now indicate the number of inhabitants that could be potentially affected by the flood. Nonetheless, as of April 2018, the FHRMs for Brussels and Flanders did not make a clear distinction among flood sources; and the FHRMs for the Brussels Scheldt UoM did not show water depth or level. The FHRMs for the region of Brussels-Capital still consider 25-50 years for the medium probability scenario. 2.5Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information The following good practices were identified: ·The plan for the Brussels Scheldt UoM includes an overview of historical data on flood damage and flood events. ·In Flanders, there were updates to the online FHRMs in 2014 and 2017 with the inclusion of new information on flood events. Online maps have been updated in 2016 on the Geoportal of Wallonia. In Brussels as well, the online FHRMs were updated.



3. Setting of Objectives 3.1Focus of objectives In Belgium, FRMP objectives are set at regional level. The Region of Flanders has set an overarching objective for the “Sustainable reduction of flood risk with sufficient protection for people, economic activity, ecology and cultural heritage”. Flanders moreover aims to reduce flood risks in the following sub-objective areas: ·inland navigation; ·ecology; ·water supply; ·water management and safety. The Region of Wallonia has set a strategic objective to limit to the maximum degree harm to persons and property, reducing negative impacts on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. The Region moreover has set six strategic objectives:

1.Improve knowledge of flood risk; 2.Decrease and slow down water runoff on watersheds; 3.Develop river beds and floodplains while respecting and promoting natural habitats which guarantee stability; 4.Decrease vulnerability to flooding in flood-prone areas; 5.Develop emergency plans and improve crisis management in case of flood. 6.Mitigate the societal and financial burden of damage The FRMP for the Escaut UoM then set specific objectives for its sub-basins. These include, for example, for the Dendre River basin: limiting overflows, in particular in the town of Lessines; and promoting coordination with the Flanders Region. The region of Brussels-Capital set one strategic objective, to reduce harm to inhabitants, buildings and infrastructure. This strategic objective is further specified in four sub-objectives. 1.Reduce the occurrence and extent of flooding in the region (O.S.5.1) 2.Reduce the vulnerability of buildings or infrastructures located in flood risk areas (prevention) (O.S.5.2) 3.Ensure crisis management and promote safeguard measures (O.S.5.3) 4.Ensure post-crisis management and return to normal state (O.S.5.4). Consequently, in the FRMPs assessed: ·In all three regions (and all five FRMPs assessed), the objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods; ·In the Brussels Region, the objectives refer directly to the reduction in the likelihood of flooding; this theme is addressed indirectly in the objectives of the Flanders Region (which calls for the reduction of flood risk overall) and the Walloon Region (which calls for river bed and floodplain initiatives that should reduce flood likelihood); ·In two of the five FRMPs assessed, those for the Walloon Region and the Brussels region, the objectives refer to non-structural initiatives (crisis management and post-flooding management). 3.2Specific and measurable objectives In Flanders, there is a framework for flood risk assessment that allows an estimation of the flood risk based on the severity of the consequences in relation to the likelihood of flooding. This framework allows a link with the sub-objectives, which are measurable and specific; indicators are identified for the sub-objectives. For example, in the FRMP Scheldt, the sub-objective for water management and safety is to achieve a sustainable or sustained reduction in the number of people affected and in the economic risks resulting from floods; it is linked to indicators for the number of people affected by floods and the damages caused by floods. Targets for the sub-objectives, however, are not set out in the FRMPs, but are found in the sub-basin plans. In the Brussels Region, more detailed operational objectives are set (these operational objectives are reported in the overview of the PoM, not in the description of the objective itself). The operational objectives are in turn linked to sub-actions, which set out specific information (who will undertake what activities and where). In the Walloon Region, the FRMPs include specific objectives, which can refer to actions to be taken at local level: many of these are specific and measurable.

3.3Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods In the FRMPs assessed and in all three Belgian regions, objectives call for the reduction of adverse consequences from floods. 3.4Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding In the Brussels Region, as noted above, the objectives refer directly to the reduction in the likelihood of flooding. In the Flanders Region the overall objective calls for a sustainable reduction of flood risk determined by likelihood and damage, thus incorporating reduction of the likelihood of flooding. In the Walloon Region, the operational objectives for river beds and floodplains should reduce flood likelihoods. 3.5Process for setting the objectives As noted, the objectives were coordinated and set at regional level. In the Flanders Region, coordination among government departments took place within the regional Coordination Committee on Integrated Water Policy (Coordinatiecommissie Integraal Waterbeheer), which brings together regional bodies as well as the associations of Flemish provinces and municipalities. Although there are coordination mechanisms in place among the three regions, including at national level within the national coordination platform on water (overlegplatform water), the FRMPs do not indicate if inter-regional coordination took place on the setting of objectives (based on the objectives themselves, it does not appear so). It is reported in the Flanders FRMPs that this coordination will be strengthened and deepened in the next reporting cycle; moreover, there are also references to greater coordination in the Walloon FRMPs – for example, as noted above, a specific objective in one sub-basin of the Walloon Escaut UoM calls for greater inter-regional coordination. According to the FRMPs assessed, potential effects of climate change on floods were taken into account but this is not explicitly described nor set out in the objectives themselves. In all three regions, proposed objectives were discussed with stakeholders (see section 7). In Wallonia, specific objectives by sub-basin have been defined in the Technical Committees with water stakeholders. 3.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives The following good practice was identified: ·The strategic objective for the Brussels Scheldt UoM is elaborated via detailed operational objectives; these in turn are linked to sub-actions, each of them is explained in specific terms: who, what, where. The following area for further development was identified: ·The FRMPs should better describe coordination among Belgium’s three regions on objectives, particularly in shared river basins such as the Scheldt, which crosses all three regions.

· 4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives Belgium has reported a total of 668 measures, of which 184 are aggregated measures and 484 are individual measures. For the Brussels Regions, 25 measures were reported for the one UoM. For the Flanders Region, 23 measures were reported in two UoMs (13 in the Scheldt FRMP and 10 in the Meuse FRMP). For the Walloon Region, 620 measures were reported across four UoMs. While the FRMPs do not explain the large difference in the number of measures across the three regions, it can be noted that the measures in the Flanders region represent aggregated activities which are further specified in the plans via individual actions. Consequently, the number of measures cannot be compared across regions.

For all three regions, both aggregated and individual measures are reported. None of the five FRMPs assessed, however, provided a definition of aggregated or individual measures. Nonetheless, for the FRMPs in Brussels and Walloon Regions, the aggregated measures are overarching actions that cover a whole UoM. The aggregated measures for Flanders generally fall into the categories of prevention and preparedness and are applied on a regional basis; in contrast, the individual measures are generally protection measures and are location-specific, typically on the scale of single water bodies. Across the five FRMPs assessed, the measures cover all four aspects of flood risk management as well as “other” and “no action” measures. The share of measures varies across the five FRMPs assessed: in four of the five, protection measures represent the largest share, but in the Walloon Rhine FRMP, prevention measures have the largest share. For all five FRMPs, recovery and review measures represent the smallest shares. ·Brussels Scheldt FRMP (BEEscautSchelde_BR): seven prevention measures (28 %); 10 protection (40 %); three preparedness and three recovery and review (12 % each); two no action (8 %) ·Flanders Scheldt FRMP (BESchelde_VL): three prevention measures (21 %); six protection measures (46 %); two preparedness measures (15 %); one recovery and review measure and one other measure (8 % each) ·Flanders Meuse FRMP (BEMaas_VL): three prevention measures (30 %); four protection measures (40 %); two preparedness measures (20 %); one other (10 %) ·Walloon Rhine FRMP (BERhin_RW): 33 prevention measures (55 %); 14 protection (23 %); 10 preparedness (17 %); three recovery and review (5%) ·Walloon Scheldt FRMP (BEEscaut_RW): 62 prevention measures (31 %); 122 protection (60 %); 16 preparedness (8 %); three recovery and review (1 %) 4.1Cost of measures Table 6 Estimated overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMPs UoM code Estimated overall budget of planned measures (2015-2021) in EUR BERhin_RW 150.000 to 400.000 BEEscaut_RW 40 m (+/- 30%) Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs The FRMPs assessed in the Walloon and Brussels regions contain the following budget information (see also the table above): ·For the Walloon Scheldt UoM (BEEscaut_RW), an overall budget of €40 m is estimated with an uncertainty of 30 %. This estimate includes investment costs but does not include operational costs. ·For the Walloon Rhine UoM (BERhin_RW), the overall budget is an even wider estimate (€150.000 to €400.000). This estimate also includes investment costs but does not include the operational costs. ·For the Brussels Scheldt UoM (BEEscaut_Schelde_BR), a cost estimate for a maximum and efficient scenario for all measures (i.e. both RBMP and FRMP measures) is presented, however, a separate estimate of costs for FRMP measures has not been found. ·For Flanders, cost information is available in separate fact sheets, available online, for each measure. The FRMPs for the Flanders Region, which are combined with the RBMPs, contain overall budget figures for water management on a regional scale, however, a separate overview of the costs of flood measures is not provided. 4.2Funding of measures The plans for Brussels contain an analysis of the different users of water and cost recovery systems for the 2010 to 2015 cycle (i.e. the first RBMP cycle). Beyond this generic information, the FRMPs do not provide further information available on recovery of costs for flood measures. For Flanders, separate fact sheets indicate the specific financing sources for each measure. The two Walloon FRMPs assessed state that implementation of measures will depend on available funds at the regional, provincial and town level (the FRMPs also refer to other sources of funding without specifying what these may be). In sum, the following information is provided on the funding of measures: Table 7 Funding of measures

BEMaas_VL BESchelde_VL BERhin_RW BEEscaut_RW BEEscaut_Schelde_BR 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 The FRMPs assessed for the regions of Flanders and Brussels-Capital do not 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 FRMPS for Wallonia do include the first three of these elements; however, there is not a clear description of when the measures are expected to be achieved in the FRMPs assessed. All five FRMPs across the three regions provide an overview of the locations indicated for the measures: Table 8 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 Across all five FRMPs assessed, it is not clear how measures will contribute to the achievement of objectives, nor clear by how much they will contribute. It is also not clear whether the objectives will be achieved when all measures are completed. In Flanders, the FRMPs set out sub-objectives that are specific and measurable and are linked to indicators and an assessment framework (see section 3). The link between the objectives, measures and the assessment framework is not described in the FRMP. As noted in section 3, the objectives of the Walloon and Brussels FRMPs are neither specific nor measurable. In the plan for the Brussels Scheldt UoM, however, the general objective is further detailed in terms of operational objectives and sub-actions, and measures are linked to these. 4.5Geographic coverage/scale of measures Belgium reported the location of implementation of measures for all measures and the geographic coverage of the impact of measures for around half of the measures. Nonetheless, in all three regions, the location of the measures is either regional (for general measures) or localised (a specific location within an UoM).

In parallel, the measures have either a regional geographic coverage (for general measures implemented at the regional level and exerting an effect on the regional level) or their coverage is a water body itself (for localised, specific measures). For Flanders, the measures reported for the Meuse and Scheldt FRMPs can be categorised as follows in terms of geographical coverage: ·There are general measures relevant for the whole region or for Meuse and Scheldt UoMs as a whole; ·For the Flanders Scheldt FRMP, there are measures located in the coastal zone and along water bodies under tidal influence (Scheldt estuary and tributaries of the Scheldt – these are part of the prior Sigma Plan to protect the Scheldt estuary from seawater flooding); ·There are measures for non-tidal water bodies. Wallonia applied a simple distribution of its measures with: global measures (at the level of Wallonia); general measures at provincial or municipal level (or another localised part of the territory); and local measures whose location is identified precisely in terms of territorial coordinates. 4.6Prioritisation of measures All three Belgian regions prioritised their measures – however, the breakdown of priorities varies across the three: ·In Brussels, seven measures were categorised as very high priority (28 %), five as high priority (20 %), six as moderate priority (24 %) and seven as low priority (28 %). ·In the two UoMs of the Flanders Region, 20 measures are categorised as high priority (87 %) and three as moderate priority (13 %). ·In the four UoMs of the Walloon Region, 183 out of 620 measures were identified as critical priority (30 %), 189 as very high priority (30 %) and another 189 as low priority (30 %), with no information provided for the remaining 59 measures (10 %). According to the FRMPs assessed in Flanders, measures in this region were prioritised using multi-criteria analysis. The criteria considered include: cost-effectiveness, feasibility, social acceptance, coherence with other actions, including those under the WFD, and urgency. For the FRMPs in Wallonia, measures were prioritised in three steps: first, a multicriteria analysis of the measures; second, an analysis of the results of this prioritisation and, eventually, adaptation by stakeholders within technical committees by sub-basin; and third, validation of prioritisation by the coordination team, the Transversal Floods Group (GTI)” (Groupe Transversal Inondations). The multicriteria analysis took into consideration the following criteria: ·human health (number of people affected); ·economic activities at risks; ·synergies identified with other water management plans, including the RBMPs and plans for economic activities, e.g. transport on water and related infrastructure; ·environmental aspects (synergies or conflicts of interest); ·cultural aspects. In the Brussels Region, the FRMP reports that measures were prioritised on the basis of the criteria of protection, prevention and preparedness; however, further information is not provided. For the Flanders and Wallonia FRMPs assessed, the timetable for the implementation of the measures is not provided within the FRMPs. The Brussels FRMP includes an overall timetable of measures linked to their priority: Priority 1 measures should be implemented in the first years of the Plan (2016-2017); Priority 2 measures in 2018-2019; and the implementation of Priority 3 measures should start by 2021 (2020-2021).

4.7Authorities responsible for implementation of measures For both the regions of Flanders and Wallonia, water management is organised depending on the category of the water. Accordingly, there are five levels: ·authorities responsible for navigable waters (regional bodies); ·regional authorities; ·provinces; ·towns ·unclassified watercourses, managed by local residents. Belgium reported on the responsible authorities for all of its measures. In all three regions, regional bodies are responsible for a large share of measures: ·In Brussels, regional bodies are responsible for 22 of the 25 measures (88 %) and municipal authorities for five measures (20 %). ·For the two UoMs in Flanders, regional authorities are indicated for 10 measures of the 23 measures (43 %), multiple authorities for 12 (52 %) and other authorities for one measure (4 %). ·For the four UoMs in Wallonia, regional authorities are responsible for 320 of the 620 measures reported (52 %), provincial authorities for 81 (13 %), municipal authorities for 192 (31 %), sub-RBD authorities for 23 (4%) and other authorities for four measures (1 %). See tables A11 and A12 and Figures A9 and A10 in Annex A for further details. 4.8Progress of implementation of measures Belgium has reported on the process of implementation of all its measures. There are differences among the three regions, with the majority of measures in Flanders ongoing and the majority of those in Brussels and Wallonia not started. ·In Brussels, three of the 25 measures are reported as ongoing construction (12 %), seven as process ongoing (28 %) and 15 not started (60 %); ·For the two UoMs in Flanders, 12 of the 23 measures are reported as ongoing construction (52 %), nine as process ongoing (39 %) and two as not started (9 %); ·For the four UoMs in Wallonia, 195 of 620 measures are reported as ongoing construction (31 %) and 425 as not started (69 %). 4.9Measures taken under other Community Acts Member States were asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure has been implemented: Belgium did not report on this (though it did provide information under ‘any other information’ – see Annex A).

For Flanders, the FRMPs and RBMPs for the Scheldt UoM (BE_Schelde_VL) and the Meuse UoM (BE_Maas_VL) are included in one document and coordinated. The PoM for the FRMP and the RBMP is provided as a single list, with the measures under the FRMP being grouped under a specific group. None of the five FRMPs assessed contain references to measures taken under the Seveso or the EIA Directives. 4.10Specific groups of measures With regard to spatial planning/land use measures, all five FRMPs assessed include measures under type 21 to prevent new development in flood prone areas. Both FRMPs assessed in Flanders and the Wallonia Scheldt FRMP each contained one measure under type 22 to remove receptors from flood prone areas. Among the specific measures, the Brussels Scheldt FRMP includes a measure to avoid building in flood sensitive areas. The Flanders FRMPs assessed include the following measure: avoiding new flood risk sensitive developments, to keep flood areas free from buildings and to build, where appropriate, buildings that are resistant to flooding. In Wallonia, there are measures related to building permits: obligatory advice from regional and provincial authorities for parcels of land subject to flooding. NWRM have been planned in all five FRMPs assessed. Among the measures identified: ·In the Brussels Scheldt FRMP (BEEscautSchelde_BR), measures include: restoration of rivers, restoration of floodplains, aquifer restoration and urban measures including permeable surfaces, retention basins and ponds and infiltration basins. ·For the Flanders Scheldt FRMP (BESchelde_VL): Buffer strips, restoration of wetlands and the restoration of rivers. ·The two Walloon FRMPs assessed (BERhin_RW and BEEscaut_RW) included urban measures, for example to take into consideration rain water retention in development projects, agriculture measures such as soil conservation and river restoration and floodplain restoration. (Due to the brief descriptions of the measures it has not been possible to link the measures to specific NWRM codes.) Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. All five FRMPs assessed take into account nature conservation (for example, citing Natura 2000 areas), but in the Brussels and Flanders FRMPs assessed, an explicit link to nature conservation in the flood risk measures themselves is not provided, . The Walloon Meuse FRMP (BEMeuse_RW) contains a flood risk measure where nature conservation is clearly cited (a measure for river restoration). Four of the five FRMPs assessed make a brief reference that they shall take into consideration navigation and port infrastructure. In Wallonia, for example, the FRMP for the Scheldt UoM states that shipping on this river is taken into consideration. The plan for the Brussels Scheldt UoM does not refer to shipping; however, at least one measure is indirectly related to it (optimising the shipping canal in Brussels for receiving run-off water). The five FRMPs assessed include planning of dredging to increase the river channel capacity and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation purposes. 4.11Recovery from and resilience to flooding The FRMPs state that properties in flood risk areas will not be covered by insurance. The Flanders FRMPs assessed refer to the 2014 revision of a 2006 national law on insurance that gives insurance companies the right to refuse coverage for properties in flood risk zones. In this regard, the flood risk maps for Wallonia and Flanders have legal value in terms of designating flood risk zones; the FRMP for Flanders explains that insurers have the right not to insure new homes located in flood risk zones against flooding. This is not the case yet for the Brussels region, where maps only have an indicative value; however, the Brussels Scheldt UoM includes a measure to prepare a map that will identify risk zones under the 2014 national legislation. For the Walloon FRMPs assessed, insurance is mentioned in the discussion of objectives – one of the operational objectives calls for the promotion of the insurability of properties – and may be related to a measure on sharing flood costs (Mutualiser les coûts liés aux inondations). The FRMPs do not provide information whether insurance is conditional on making at-risk properties (domestic, industrial) as flood resilient as possible, nor if environmental liability insurance cover the restoration costs arising from flooding of potentially polluting sites and installations. 4.12Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP The FRMPs assessed in all three regions provide information on the process for monitoring progress.

The FRMPs applicable to the region of Wallonia state that each authority is responsible for monitoring progress. A set of parameters needs to be tracked, including progress (not started, in progress, finished, not implemented). The progress will be monitored twice during the six-year cycle: 2017 and 2019. The assembled data on progress will be examined by the technical committees in each sub-basin. For the region of Flanders, the Water Uitvoerings Programma (Water Execution Programme) is a monitoring programme that is executed on a yearly basis. It assembles the input provided by the authorities responsible for monitoring, planning and amendments to their work plans. It is not indicated in the reporting sheets which parameters on the measures will be monitored. In the Brussels Region, each body responsible for one or more measures should monitor progress. The Brussels Institute for Environmental Management coordinates and monitors overall progress on the FRMP on a yearly basis. The monitored parameters are qualitative and quantitative and includes two criteria: ·progress (in %): effective days and total number of days foreseen for the project; ·financial progress (%). In addition, progress is indicated as not started, in progress, finished and abandoned. There is no information available in any of the FRMPs assessed whether a baseline has been established against which progress will be monitored and assessed in all five FRMPs assessed. 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 Basin Management Plan (RBMP) of the WFD. Table 9 Coordination of the development of the FRMPs with the development of the second RBMP of the WFD BEMaas_VL BESchelde_VL BERhin_RW BEEscaut_RW BEEscaut-Schelde_BR Integration of FRMP and RBMP in a single plan ✔ ✔ ✔ 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 FD 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 FD, 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 FRMPs do not associate the reported FD measures to WFD measures in a formal way. However, although WFD and FD measures are not associated formally, and considering the close coordination of the WFD and FD reporting in the regions of Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels-Capital, and examining into detail the measures in each of the plans, it can be concluded that many of the measures taken under the FD (e.g. NWRM measures, floodplain and river restoration) are also contributing to the WFD objectives. 4.14Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures The following good practices were identified: ·For the FRMPs in the Walloon Region, cost estimates have been elaborated for all measures in the FRMPs assessed; ·All the FRMPs assessed contain land use and spatial planning measures and all include NWRM. ·All five FRMPs assessed provided an overview of the method for monitoring progress of measures. For the regions of Flanders and Brussels-Capital, monitoring is carried out on a yearly basis. The following areas for further development were identified: ·The Brussels Scheldt FRMP does not provide information on the costs of flood measures; the FRMPs for the Walloon Region present wide ranges rather than specific costs . ·The Brussels Scheldt FRMP does not provide information on funding sources for measures.





5. Consideration of climate change The five FRMPs assessed all addressed climate change; however, none of them refer to Belgium’s 2010 National Climate Change Adaption Strategy. The Flemish FRMPs do contain a reference to the regional Flemish Adaptation Plan (Vlaams Adaptatieplan). All five FRMPs assessed provide some information on the potential impacts of climate change and all five state that these have been taken into consideration. The Flanders and Walloon FRMPs assessed state, for example, that increased risks due to climate change are taken into consideration in calculations of the design of measures related to flood protection infrastructures. The Brussels Scheldt plan provides an overview of climate impacts, based on a detailed background study: projected impacts include more intensive summer rains and more prolonged periods of rain in winter. The FRMP for Wallonia’s Scheldt UoM mentions indications of increased occurrence of extreme rainfall but states that a statistically significant change has not been detected yet. The reporting sheets for the two Flanders FRMPs mention an increased occurrence of flooding (both from heavy rainfall as well as from rivers). The Brussels plan indicates that the timeframes of the climate change scenarios considered are 2030, 2050 and 2085. No information was found in the FRMPs assessed from the Flanders and Walloon Regions on the timeframes of climate scenarios. The FRMPs do not refer specifically to expected changes in main sources of flooding. 5.1Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change With regard to measures to reduce pollution risk in flood prone zones, climate change is mentioned explicitly in some but not all FRMPs assessed. The FRMP for the Brussels Scheldt UoM indicates that climate change was considered in the design of some measures, including measures to address pollution risks in flood risk zones (e.g. AP 5.9: Poursuivre le programme pluriannuel d’installation de bassins d’orage, which include addressing pollution risks). A similar observation is made for the region of Wallonia (e.g. measure 7 on storm basins). (The measures in the Flanders FRMPs assessed, which as noted in section 4 represent aggregated activities, do not provide similar details.) Climate change is mentioned in the description of non-structural measures for some, but not all FRMPs assessed. The FRMPs applicable to the region of Brussels-Capital include some general measures that relate to management of flood plains, for example to strengthen enforcement of rules in these areas (e.g. Renforcer la réglementation et le suivi des infractions en zone inondable). 5.2Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change The following good practice was identified: ·The plan for the Brussels Scheldt UoM provides a detailed analysis of climate change forecasts and their implications for water management. The following areas for further development were identified: ·Strengthen coordination with the National Climate Change Adaption Strategy.



6. Cost-benefit analysis Some, but not all FRMPs assessed refer to costs and benefits as a criterion for the establishment of priorities for the selection of measures. Each region takes a different approach. The region of Wallonia bases the prioritisation of measures upon a multi-criteria analysis, including economic aspects (costs and benefits), but it is unclear from the information if this was done in a qualitative or quantitative way. The region of Flanders prioritises measures also based upon a multi-criteria analysis, including a cost-effectiveness analysis. The Flanders FRMPs do not provide information on the methodology; however, they include a specific measure on the acquisition of additional knowledge and further development of the methodology for CBA of measure in general. The FRMP for the region of Brussels-Capital does not indicate that CBA was applied.

The FRMPs assessed do not provide information if the CBA was used to assess measures with transnational effects (nor if any such measures were identified). 6.1Good practices and areas for further development The following good practice was identified: ·The Flanders and Walloon FRMPs assessed included cost and benefit aspects among the criteria for the prioritisation of measures The following area for further development was identified: ·The use of CBA should be considered for the Brussels Scheldt Plan.



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 FD have not changed. Belgium has not reported new information to WISE 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 five 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 10 Methods used to inform the public and interested parties of the FRMPs BEMaas_VL BESchelde_VL BERhin_RW BEEscaut_RW BEEscaut_ Schelde_BR Media (papers, TV, radio) ✔ ✔ Internet ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Digital Social networking Printed material ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Direct mailing ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Invitations to stakeholders ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Local Authorities ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Meetings ✔ ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs The three regions used somewhat different communication methods for the public consultation. In Wallonia, public consultation was focused on direct communication of the documents with stakeholders and authorities. In Flanders, an array of channels was applied for the consultation, including Internet, printed materials and a media campaign, ‘Vol van Water’ (full of water), which includes a web site and sponsored advertisements in magazines during the consultation period. In the Brussels and Flanders regions, special information sessions were organised to introduce the FRMPs and invite interested citizens in the public consultation: the FRMPs report one in Brussels and five in Flanders. For all five FRMPs assessed, printed material was produced to describe the plans: for example, Wallonia and the Brussels Region produced a brief, non-technical summary for the broad public. The table below shows how the actual consultation was carried out: Table 11 Methods used for the actual consultation BEMaas_VL BESchelde_VL BERhin_RW BEEscaut_RW BEEscaut_ Schelde_BR Via Internet ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Via digital social networking Direct invitation ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Exhibitions Workshops, seminars or conferences ✔ ✔ ✔ Telephone surveys Direct involvement in drafting FRMP Postal written comments ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Other* ✔ ✔ ✔ Note: * The FRMPs in the Brussels and Flanders were integrated into the RBMPs and thus were part of the consultations on those plans.

In all three regions, the consultation included written comments which could be provided via Internet. In Brussels and Flanders, the FRMP consultation was organised with that of the RBMP, as the FRMPs were integrated into the RBMPs. In Brussels and Flanders, meetings provided an opportunity for discussion on the plans. In Wallonia, following the public consultation, 167 letters were recorded either by post or by mail. The table below shows how the documents for the consultation were provided: Table 12 Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation BEMaas_VL BESchelde_VL BERhin_RW BEEscaut_RW BEEscaut_ Schelde_BR 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 * ✔ ✔ ✔ Note: * In Brussels and Flanders, documents were available at information session The documents of the FRMPs in Belgium were made available electronically and in printed format in the different regions, for the relevant FRMPs. In Brussels and Flanders, documents were available at town halls. Wallonia has sent a paper copy to each municipality to make it available to the public. 7.3Active involvement of Stakeholders The table below shows the groups of stakeholders that have been actively involved in the development of the five FRMPs assessed: Table 13 Groups of stakeholders BEMaas_VL BESchelde_VL BERhin_RW BEEscaut_RW BEEscaut_ Schelde_BR 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 A range of stakeholders were consulted on the plans. In Brussels, the water actors and operators (Vivaqua, SBGE, the Port Authority) were actively involved in the development of the Brussels FRMP. In Wallonia, amongst others, emergency actors, the ‘Wateringues’ and port authorities were involved in the Technical Committee. The Walloon Federation of Farmers participated in tables rondes. In Wallonia, universities are involved in the Flood Transversal Group (GTI). In addition, neighbouring countries have been involved via the international river basin commissions of Scheldt and Meuse via exchange of documents and multilateral meetings. Relevant stakeholder groups and commissions on nature and water management were informed about the draft FRMPs prior to the public consultation. 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 BEMaas_VL BESchelde_VL BERhin_RW BEEscaut_RW BEEscaut_

Schelde_BR Regular exhibitions Establishment of advisory groups Involvement in drafting Workshops and technical meetings ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Formation of alliances Information days ✔ ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs In Brussels, municipalities, stakeholders and other actors provided feedback on the plan, including via a regional information session was organised for this purpose. In Flanders, the Coordination Commission for Integrated Water Management is responsible for the development of the plans: this Commission brings together a range of government bodies, and it organised a meeting with sub-UoM-level advisory groups (bekkenraden) for information and consultation on the drafting and content of the FRMPs: these groups include representatives of environmental organisations; various economic sectors including agriculture, industry, commerce, energy, fisheries, transport and tourism; and local governments. Draft versions of the plans were reviewed by local water management authorities. As noted in section 4, preparation of the FRMPs in Wallonia included a government coordination body, the Transversal Floods Group (Groupe Transversal Inondations), which brings together water managers, operational water management services, technical services and provinces, water operators and water commissions and universities.

7.4Effects of consultation The table below shows the effects of consultation: BEMaas_VL BESchelde_VL BERhin_RW BEEscaut_RW BEEscaut_

Schelde_BR Changes to selection of measures Adjustment to specific measures ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Addition of new information ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Changes to the methodology used Commitment to further research Commitment to action in the next FRMP cycle Comments and results of the consultation "were considered in the formulation of the plan" Suggestions for other/additional measures, additions to texts and further clarifications ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs According to the FRMPs assessed, the feedback received from the public consultation in the regions of Flanders and Wallonia mainly resulted in adjustments to measures proposed, addition of new information, further clarifications and suggestion for additional measures. Detailed information on feedback from the public consultation in the region of Brussels-Capital could not be found in the assessed documents (for this region, a total of 37 comments were received from organisations and authorities and an equal number of comments from the public). No further information was included on the content and nature of these comments in the assessed documents. 7.5Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) All the FRMPs assessed underwent SEA procedures. 7.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance The following good practice was identified: ·Across all three regions, a range of activities were undertaken for public consultation and the active involvement of stakeholders. In Flanders and Wallonia, stakeholders were involved via advisory groups. Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures provided by Belgium 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 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: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A6: Cost by UoM (EUR)

Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by UoM Figure A7: Visualisation of Table A9: Timetable of implementation by measure aspect Figure A8: Visualisation of Table A10: Timetable of implementation by UoM Figure A9 - Visualisation of Table A11: Level of responsibility by measure aspect Figure A10 - Visualisation of Table A12: Level of responsibility by UoM Figure A11 - Visualisation of Table A13: Progress of implementation by measure aspect Figure A12 - Visualisation of Table A14: Progress of implementation by UoM Table A1 - Total number of measures Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, including duplicates Table A5: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) Table A6: Cost by UoM (EUR) Table A7 - Category of priority by measure aspect Table A8 - Category of priority by UoM Table A9: Timetable of implementation by measure aspect Table A10: Timetable of implementation by UoM Table A11 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect

Table A12 - Level of responsibility by UoM Table A13 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect Table A14 – Progress of implementation by UoM Measures overview Table A1 - Total number of measures Number of individual measures 484 Number of individual measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 484 Number of aggregated measures 184 Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 184 Total number of measures 668 Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 668 Range of number of measures between UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type (Min-Max) 2 – 282 Average number of measures across UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 69 Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM Prevention Protection Preparedness Recovery & review No Action Grand Total M21 M22 M23 M24 M31 M32 M33 M34 M35 M41 M42 M43 M44 M51 M52 M53 M11 BEEscaut_RW 0 1 5 34 41 59 8 5 2 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 161 BEEscautSchelde_BR 3 0 4 0 2 1 0 3 4 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 25 BEMaas_VL 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 BEMeuse_RW 1 0 4 24 41 70 111 9 5 0 2 9 1 2 1 2 0 282 BERhin_RW 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 BESchelde_VL 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 BESeine_RW 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Grand Total 4 2 0 60 85 131 124 17 12 3 4 15 3 3 2 3 2 484 Notes: The codes for measure types are explained in section 2 of this document. 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 M34 M41 M42 M43 M44 M51 M52 M53 M61 BEEscaut_RW 4 0 0 18 5 1 1 0 2 2 2 4 1 0 2 0 42 BEMaas_VL 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 BEMeuse_RW 4 0 0 18 5 1 1 0 2 2 2 4 1 0 1 0 42 BERhin_RW 4 0 0 18 5 1 1 0 2 2 2 4 1 0 1 0 42 BESchelde_VL 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 10 BESeine_RW 4 0 0 18 5 1 1 0 2 2 2 4 1 0 2 0 42 Grand Total 18 1 1 72 22 6 6 3 8 8 8 16 4 0 9 2 184 Notes: The codes used are explained in section B of this document. The Brussels Scheldt UoM (BEEscautSchelde_BR) does not have aggregated measures and thus is not represented in this table. Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, including duplicates No action No action Total Prevention Prevention Total Protection Protection Total Preparedness Prepared-ness Total Recovery and review Recovery and review Total Other Other Total Grand Total Indivi-dual Aggre-gated Indivi-dual Aggre-gated Indivi-dual Aggre-gated Indivi-dual Aggre-gated Indivi-dual Aggre-gated BEEscaut_RW 22 40 62 7 115 122 10 6 16 3 3 203 BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 2 2 7 7 10 10 3 3 3 3 25 BEMAAS_VL 2 1 3 3 1 4 2 2 1 1 10 BEMeuse_RW 22 29 51 7 236 243 10 12 22 3 5 8 324 BERhin_RW 22 22 7 7 14 10 10 3 3 49 BESCHELDE_VL 2 1 3 6 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 13 BESeine_RW 22 2 24 7 7 10 10 3 3 44 Grand Total 2 2 92 80 172 37 369 406 40 25 65 13 8 21 2 2 668 Average per UoM <1 <1 13 11 25 5 53 58 6 4 9 2 1 3 <1 <1 95 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) Explanation for the cost was not provided in the reporting sheets for any of the measures. Nevertheless, the majority of the measures contain information about their estimated costs, which is summarised in the following tables. Table A5: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) No cost 0-50k 50-100k 100-200k 200-500k 500k-1M 1-5M Over 5M Un-known No info. Grand Total No action 2 2 Prevention 18 10 14 13 3 3 3 7 101 172 Protection 13 126 45 48 38 19 27 1 41 48 406 Preparedness 7 6 5 47 65 Recovery & review 4 1 16 21 Other 2 2 Grand Total 42 142 60 61 41 22 30 1 53 216 668 Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) Table A6: Cost by UoM (EUR) No cost 0-50k 50-100k 100-200k 200-500k 500k-1M 1-5M Over 5M Un-known No info. Grand Total BEEscaut_RW 11 48 26 18 14 16 15 13 42 203 BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 25 25 BEMAAS_VL 10 10 BEMeuse_RW 28 92 33 42 27 6 15 1 38 42 324 BERhin_RW 2 1 1 1 2 42 49 BESCHELDE_VL 13 13 BESeine_RW 1 1 42 44 Grand Total 42 142 60 61 41 22 30 1 53 216 668 Average per UoM 6 20 9 9 6 3 4 <1 8 31 95 Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A6: Cost by UoM (EUR) 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 Geographic coverage Geographic coverage of the impact of measures was reported for around half of the measures. However, due to the large number of different types of geographic coverage mentioned, aggregation of the data was not possible. 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 reporting sheet); ·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 Information about objectives was not provided in the reporting sheets for any measures. Category of priority Belgium provided information for the priority of almost 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

Critical Very high High Moderate Low No information Grand Total No action 1 1 2 Prevention 42 46 8 3 43 30 172 Protection 116 129 8 5 119 29 406 Preparedness 21 16 6 22 65 Recovery & review 4 4 1 12 21 Other 2 2 Grand Total 183 196 25 9 196 59 668 Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect Table A8 - Category of priority by UoM Critical Very high High Moderate Low No information Grand Total BEEscaut_RW 62 63 51 27 203 BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 7 5 6 7 25 BEMAAS_VL 8 2 10 BEMeuse_RW 84 110 99 31 324 BERhin_RW 19 9 20 1 49 BESCHELDE_VL 12 1 13 BESeine_RW 18 7 19 44 Grand Total 183 196 25 9 196 59 668 Average per UoM 26 28 4 1 28 8 95 Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by UoM Timetable Information on the timetable was provided for the majority of measures, a summary is provided in the following tables. Table A9: Timetable of implementation by measure aspect Planned 2016 - 2018 Planned 2019 - 2021 2016-2021 In progress Periodic No information Grand Total No action 2 2 Prevention 6 5 88 46 14 13 172 Protection 103 50 28 145 60 20 406 Preparedness 8 40 4 6 7 65 Recovery & review 1 12 4 4 21 Other 2 2 Grand Total 117 56 168 195 84 48 668 Figure A7: Visualisation of Table A9: Timetable of implementation by measure aspect Table A10: Timetable of implementation by UoM Planned 2016 - 2018 Planned 2019 - 2021 2016-2021 In progress Periodic No information Grand Total BEEscaut_RW 35 16 42 99 11 203 BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 25 25 BEMAAS_VL 10 10 BEMeuse_RW 79 40 42 95 68 324 BERhin_RW 3 42 1 3 49 BESCHELDE_VL 13 13 BESeine_RW 42 2 44 Grand Total 117 56 168 195 84 48 668 Average per UoM 17 8 24 28 12 7 95 Figure A8: Visualisation of Table A10: Timetable of implementation by UoM 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). Information about the name of the responsible authority was provided for most measures. However, due to the large number of different authorities mentioned, aggregation of the data was not possible. Information about the level of the responsible authority was provided for all measures, with two measures reported twice, making the total 670 instead of 668. It is assumed that these measures were reported twice as they have more than one responsible authority.



Table A11 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect Sub-RBD Municipality Province Region Multiple authorities Other Grand Total No action 1 1 2 Prevention 10 25 32 103 2 2 174 Protection 2 161 46 186 9 2 406 Preparedness 7 9 2 47 65 Recovery & review 4 1 1 14 1 21 Other 1 1 2 Grand Total 23 197 81 352 12 5 670 Notes: The original data reports information about responsible authorities for 670 measures instead of 668, indicating that several measures have reported multiple authorities. Figure A9 - Visualisation of Table A11: Level of responsibility by measure aspect Notes: The original data reports information about responsible authorities for 670 measures instead of 668, indicating that several measures have reported multiple authorities.



Table A12 - Level of responsibility by UoM Sub-RBD Municipality Province Region Multiple authorities Other Grand Total BEEscaut_RW 9 73 49 69 3 203 BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 5 22 27 BEMAAS_VL 6 4 10 BEMeuse_RW 12 119 32 160 1 324 BERhin_RW 49 49 BESCHELDE_VL 4 8 1 13 BESeine_RW 2 42 44 Grand Total 23 197 81 352 12 5 670 Average per UoM 3 28 12 50 2 1 96 Notes: The original data reports information about responsible authorities for 670 measures instead of 668, indicating that several measures have reported multiple authorities. Figure A10 - Visualisation of Table A12: Level of responsibility by UoM

Notes: The original data reports information about responsible authorities for 670 measures instead of 668, indicating that several measures have reported multiple authorities.

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. Belgium 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 A13 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect Ongoing construction Progress ongoing Not started Grand Total No action 2 2 Prevention 1 52 119 172 Protection 12 150 244 406 Preparedness 2 6 57 65 Recovery & review 1 20 21 Other 2 2 Grand Total 15 211 442 668 Notes: No measures were reported as completed Figure A11 - Visualisation of Table A13: Progress of implementation by measure aspect Notes: No measures were reported as completed Table A14 – Progress of implementation by UoM Ongoing construction Progress ongoing Not started Grand Total BEEscaut_RW 99 104 203 BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 3 7 15 25 BEMAAS_VL 5 4 1 10 BEMeuse_RW 95 229 324 BERhin_RW 1 48 49 BESCHELDE_VL 7 5 1 13 BESeine_RW 44 44 Grand Total 15 211 442 668 Average per UoM 2 30 63 95

Notes: No measures were reported as completed Figure A12 - Visualisation of Table A14: Progress of implementation by UoM Notes: No measures were reported as completed The categories describing the progress of measures are defined in the EU Reporting Guidance Document on the FD. For measures involving construction or building works (e.g. a waste water treatment plant, a fish pass, a river restoration project, etc.): ·Not started (NS) means the technical and/or administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have not started. ·Progress on-going (POG) means that administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have started but are not finalised. The simple inclusion in the RBMPs is not considered planning in this context. ·On-going construction (OGC) means the construction or building works have started but are not finalized. ·Completed (COM) means the works have been finalised and the facilities are operational (maybe only in testing period in case e.g. a waste water treatment plant). For measures involving advisory services (e.g. training for farmers): ·Not started (NS) means the advisory services are not yet operational and have not provided any advisory session yet. ·Progress on-going (POG) means the advisory services are operational and are being used. This is expected to be the situation for all multi- annual long/mid-term advisory services that are expected to be operational during the whole or most of RBMP cycle. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means an advisory service that has been implemented and has been finalised, i.e. is no longer operational. This is expected only for advisory services that are relatively short term or one-off, and which duration is time limited in relation to the whole RBMP cycle. For measures involving research, investigation or studies: ·Not started (NS) means the research, investigation or study has not started, i.e. contract has not been signed or there has not been any progress. ·Progress on-going (POG) means the research, investigation or study has been contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means the research, investigation or study has been finalised and has been delivered, i.e. the results or deliverables are available (report, model, etc.). For measures involving administrative acts (e.g. licenses, permits, regulations, instructions, etc.): ·Not started (NS) means the administrative file has not been opened and there has not been any administrative action as regards the measure. ·Progress on-going (POG) means an administrative file has been opened and at least a first administrative action has been taken (e.g. requirement to an operator to provide information to renew the licensing, request of a permit by an operator, internal consultation of draft regulations, etc.). If the measure involves more than one file, the opening of one would mean already “ongoing”. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license or permit has been issued; the regulation has been adopted, etc.). If the measure involves more than one administrative act, “completed” is achieved only when all of them have been concluded. Measure details: other Member States were requested to provide information on: ·Other Community Acts associated to the measures reported (optional field); ·Any other information reported (optional field). All measures have information for ‘any other information’. However, due to the large number of different responses the data could not be aggregated. No information was provided for the field ‘Other Community Act’. Annex B: Definitions of measure types Table B1 Types of flood risk management measures No Action M11 No Action, No measure is proposed to reduce the flood risk in the APSFR or other defined area, Prevention M21 Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation M22 Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to relocate receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard M23 Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc... M24 Prevention, Other prevention, Other measure to enhance flood risk prevention (may include, flood risk modelling and assessment, flood vulnerability assessment, maintenance programmes or policies etc...) Protection M31 Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the flow into natural or artificial drainage systems, such as overland flow interceptors and / or storage, enhancement of infiltration, etc and including in-channel, floodplain works and the reforestation of banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water. M32 Protection, Water flow regulation, Measures involving physical interventions to regulate flows, such as the construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line storage areas or development of existing flow regulation rules), and which have a significant impact on the hydrological regime. M33 Protection, Channel, Coastal and Floodplain Works, Measures involving physical interventions in freshwater channels, mountain streams, estuaries, coastal waters and flood-prone areas of land, such as the construction, modification or removal of structures or the alteration of channels, sediment dynamics management, dykes, etc. M34 Protection, Surface Water Management, Measures involving physical interventions to reduce surface water flooding, typically, but not exclusively, in an urban environment, such as enhancing artificial drainage capacities or though sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). M35 Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to enhance protection against flooding, which may include flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies Preparedness M41 Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or warning system M42 Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish or enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning M43 Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public awareness or preparedness for flood events M44 Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to establish or enhance preparedness for flood events to reduce adverse consequences Recovery & Review M51 Recovery and Review (Planning for the recovery and review phase is in principle part of preparedness), Individual and societal recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (buildings, infrastructure, etc), Health and mental health supporting actions, incl. managing stress Disaster financial assistance (grants, tax), incl. disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, Temporary or permanent relocation, Other M52 Recovery and Review, Environmental recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (with several sub-topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous materials containers) M53 Recovery and Review, Other, Other recovery and review Lessons learnt from flood events Insurance policies Other M61 Other Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures NWRM cover a wide range of actions and land use types. Many different measures can act as NWRM, by encouraging the retention of water within a catchment and, through that, enhancing the natural functioning of the catchment. The catalogue developed in the NWRM project represents a comprehensive but non-prescriptive wide range of measures; other measures, or similar measures called by a different name, could also be classified as NWRM.