EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 82 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: United Kingdom Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 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) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of contents 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 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 FHRMs 2.5 Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information. 3. Setting of Objectives

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

4.14 Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures 5. Consideration of climate change 5.1 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 7.6 Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures Background & method Types of measures used in reporting List of Annex A tables & figures Measures overview Measure details: cost Measure details: name & location

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



Acronyms APSFR Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk CBA Cost-benefit analysis EEA European Environment Agency FD Floods Directive FHRM Flood Hazard and Risk Map FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan KTM Key Type of Measures NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NWRM Natural Water Retention Measures PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan 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 Strategies assessed by the end of 2015. This report assesses the Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) for the United Kingdom. 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: due to the high number of FRMPs prepared in the UK (36 in total), the assessment has focused on a selected set of plans/strategies, chosen to cover a range of methodological approaches, the UK’s administrative structure and different Units of Management (UoMs). The following FRMPs were reviewed in England, Northern Ireland and Wales, where the plans assessed were prepared at the level of the UoMs: oUK02 Solway Tweed (English part of the UoM); oUK09 Severn (jointly managed by England and Wales); oUKGBNIIENB Neagh Bann (Northern Ireland).

In Scotland, where Flood Risk Management Strategies were prepared at a sub-UoM level, the following strategies (as opposed to plans) were assessed out of a total of 14 FRM Strategies (which 14 are included in the total of 36): oUK01 Clyde and Loch Lomond (Scottish part of the UoM); oUK02 Solway (Scottish part of the UoM); Overview Figure 1 Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts International River Basin Districts (within European Union) International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) as presented in the 2012 River Basins Management Plan assessment reports The UK is divided into 16 UoMs. For England, Wales and Northern Ireland these correspond to the River Basin Districts (RBDs) under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and each has an FRMP. At the time of the assessment, the UK had reported a total of 36 FRMPs (no FRMP has been reported for Gibraltar, UKGI17). In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the FRMPs are prepared at UoM level. Wales also prepared an additional 8 FRMPs at the level of the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA). In Scotland, 14 Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs) were prepared by Local Plan Districts, which relate to river catchments as well as to administrative areas. These Strategies were reported to Water Information System for Europe (WISE) as Flood Risk Management Strategies assessed and are included in the assessment, . Two of the Scottish Local Plan Districts are within the Solway Tweed UoM (UK02) that is shared and jointly managed with England. One FRMP was prepared for the area of the UoM in England and two strategies for the two Local Plan Districts in Scotland. Two UoMs are located in both England and Wales (UK11 – Dee and UK09 – Severn): these UoMs are jointly managed and a single FRMP was prepared for each UoM. The approaches for the FRMPs differ between Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England and Wales). However, the approach within each of these four jurisdictions is the same, for example the same wording is used within the introductory chapters of the FRMPs. In England the competent authority for the FD is the Environment Agency; in Wales, Natural Resources Wales (NRW); in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD); and in Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). The Scottish FRMSs were published by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) and indicate that they were approved by Scottish Ministers. Information on the approval of English, Welsh and Northern Irish FRMPs was not found. The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in the UK, including the UoM code, the name, and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if the UK reported all documents for each UoM to the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE – the FRMP(s) as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML. Table 1Overview of UoMs in UK UoM Names Number of APSFRs XML Reported PDF Reported UK01 SCOTLAND 206 Yes Yes UK02 SOLWAY TWEED 37 Yes Yes UK03 NORTHUMBRIA - Yes Yes UK04 HUMBER 3 Yes Yes UK05 ANGLIAN 1 Yes Yes UK06 THAMES 2 Yes Yes UK07 SOUTH EAST 1 Yes Yes UK08 SOUTH WEST - Yes Yes UK09 SEVERN 7 Yes Yes UK10 WESTERN WALES 2 Yes Yes UK11 DEE - Yes Yes UK12 NORTH WEST 2 Yes Yes UKGBNIIENB NEAGH BANN 9 Yes Yes UKGBNIIENW NORTH WESTERN 3 Yes Yes UKGBNINE NORTH EASTERN 8 Yes Yes UKGI17 GIBRALTAR - No No TOTAL 281 The FRMPs can be downloaded via the following websites: ·For England and Wales (UK02 to UK12): https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/flood-risk-management-strategies assessed-frmps-2015-to-2021 and https://naturalresources.wales/flooding/managing-flood-risk/developing-flood-risk-management-strategies assessed/?lang=en

·For the Flood Risk Management Strategies prepared in Scotland (UK01 and part of UK02): http://apps.sepa.org.uk/FRMStrategies/ In addition, the local flood plans linked to the Strategies can be downloaded from another page on the Scottish EPA web site: https://www.sepa.org.uk/environment/water/flooding/local-frm-plans/ ·Northern Ireland (UKGBNIIENB, UKGBNIIENW and UKGBNINE): https://www.infrastructure-ni.gov.uk/publications/flood-risk-management-plans Overview of the assessment The table below gives an overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs. The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: ·Evidence to the contrary: An explicit statement was found stating that the criterion was not met; ·No evidence: No information found to indicate that the criterion was met; ·Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication of the approach used for the criterion; depending on the comment in the adjacent column, “some evidence” could also be construed as “weak evidence” ·Strong evidence: Clear information provided, describing an approach followed in the FRMP to address the criterion. Table 2Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs Criterion Evidence Comments FRM objectives have been established Strong evidence The five FRMPs assessed include a list of established objectives. In the FRMP for Neagh Bann, UKGBNIIENB, the objectives refer to the whole UoM; and in the Welsh part of the Severn, UK09 FRMP, objectives refer to all the Welsh part of the UoM. There are also objectives set in the Local FRMPs for Wales that are specific to the local area. For the other FRMPs assessed – for Scotland (UK01), Solway Tweed (UK02, shared between Scotland and England) –as well as for the English part of UK09, each objective is assigned to a specific location: catchment, water body or town. FRM objectives relate to... ...the reduction of potential adverse consequences Strong evidence In all five FRMPs, the objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods. ...to the reduction of the likelihood of flooding Some evidence In all five FRMPs assessed, the objectives include the reduction of flood risk, a term which includes, at least by definition, the likelihood of flooding. In one of the five FRMPs assessed, for the Neagh Bann UoM (UKGBNIINB), moreover, one of the main objectives is to reduce the likelihood of flooding. For the other FRMPs assessed, there do not appear to be objectives specifically referring to the reduction of the likelihood of flooding. ...to non-structural initiatives Some evidence This aspect is specified in the definition of objectives in some of the FRMPs assessed. An example includes improving awareness in catchments which react rapidly to rainfall: this is an objective in two FRMPs (Neagh Bann, UKGBNIINB, and Severn, UK09). FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to... ...human health Strong evidence In three of the five FRMPs assessed, the objectives refer to addressing human health, economic activity and the environment (including cultural heritage). In the two Scottish strategies assessed, specific objectives refer to residential and non-residential properties, transport, community facilities, and risks to people, for example, which represent economic activity and human health. ...economic activity Strong evidence See ‘human health’ above. ...environment Strong evidence See ‘human health’ above. For the two Scottish strategies assessed, environment is not addressed directly in the objectives. ...cultural heritage Some evidence See ‘human health’ above. Measures have been... ...identified Strong evidence The United Kingdom has reported 9 055 individual measures and 336 aggregated measures, for a total of 9 391 measures. The lowest numbers of measures are in the Northern Irish UoMs (from 27 to 42 each) and the highest number is in the Scotland UoM (UK01), 2 337 measures. The measures reported cover prevention (2 978 in all UoMs reported), protection (3 359), preparedness (3 266) and recovery and review (146) as well as "other" (363). ...prioritised Some evidence The UK has reported priorities for about 60 % of measures. Measures have been prioritised in the English, Scottish and Northern Irish FRMPs assessed. For the Western Wales UoM (UK10), no priorities were reported, and no priorities were reported for a high proportion of measures in three other UoMs. The FRMPs assessed do not provide detailed information on how priorities were set. Relevant aspects of Article 7 have been taken into account such as... ...costs & benefits Some evidence The FRMPs refer to cost benefit assessment as a criterion for the establishment of priorities for the selection of measures. With the exception of the Scottish strategies, further details were not reported, nor was evidence of such assessments provided. ...flood extent Strong evidence Historic flooding and flooding extents are described in the FRMPs. ...flood conveyance Some evidence In the two Scottish strategies assessed, conveyance routes are discussed in the description of measures and their potential impacts. There is no clear information whether conveyance routes have been taken into account for objectives and measures in the English, Welsh or Northern Irish FRMPs assessed. ...water retention Some evidence Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in four of the five FRMPs assessed, though they are promoted in all the FRMPs. ...environmental objectives of the WFD Some evidence The FRMPs assessed refer to the necessity of coordination between the FRMPs and River Basin Management Plan (RBMPs), and the obligation to foster the achievement of the WFD objectives, which often leads to the selection of sustainable solutions. The WFD was considered in objective-setting for the English and Welsh FRMPs assessed. The WFD was considered in the commentary of the specific measures where relevant in the Scottish strategies assessed. It was unclear if this is the case for the Neagh Bann FRMP assessed. ...spatial planning/land use Strong evidence All five FRMPs assessed include references to land use, as well as measures to align with planning policies to prevent further damages. ...nature conservation Strong evidence All five FRMPs assessed refer to biodiversity and coordination with biodiversity authorities or partnerships. ...navigation/port infrastructure Some evidence The only plan that appears to consider ports and navigation in the consideration of measures is the Scottish Solway plan (in the Scottish part of UK02, Solway Tweed). ...likely impact of climate change Strong evidence The FRMPs assessed refer to climate change scenarios. The timeframes considered for climate change scenarios vary for the different FRMPs in the UK. Measures related to climate change are described in the FRMPs for England (UK02 and UK09) and include incorporating climate change allowances into flood risk management works and identifying where working with natural processes can help improve resilience to climate change. In Northern Ireland, the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP indicates that preventative measures take account of climate change, and the Scottish strategies assessed refer to measures to study flood risk and any changes in the future due to climate change. Coordination with other countries ensured in the RBD/UoM Some evidence One of the five FRMPs assessed, for the Neagh Bann UoM (UKGBNIIENB), is for part of an international UoM. It is indicated that there is coordination with the Republic of Ireland on all technical matters and proposed flood mitigation measures. However, it has not been specified in the FRMP whether flood risk areas have been coordinated and there are no maps showing areas of shared flood risk with the Republic of Ireland. Coordination ensured with WFD Strong evidence There is evidence of coordination of the FRMPs with the RBMPs under the WFD, in Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. In the Scottish strategies assessed, it is reported that the Scottish EPA is leading the delivery of RBMPs and FRMS and has worked to ensure that there is integration and coordination between them. Active involvement of interested parties Strong evidence During the drafting process of all the FRMPs assessed, working groups were established with public institutions. Coordination also extended to a range of stakeholders, including via advisory councils at different levels, include UoMs, catchments and coastal areas. Good Practices The assessment identified the following good practices in the UK FRMPs assessed. Table 3 Good practices in the UK’s FRMPs Topic area Good practices identified Objectives The objectives are specific in terms of what they are trying to achieve and where. Measures have been linked with the objectives. Planning/implementing of measures and their prioritization for the achievement of objectives Many measures are clear in terms of their geographic location and coverage, responsible authority, general timetable. Promotion of sustainable land use practices has been planned in all of the FRMPs assessed. In some of the FRMPs, economic instruments for flood risk management such as insurance has been supported. The UK provides cost estimates for a large number of measures across all of its UoMs in the reporting sheets. Climate change All five FRMPs consider climate change scenarios, though the timeframes vary across the UK. The development of further studies to identify the effects of climate change is part of the measures planned in some of the FRMPs assessed. Public consultation Extensive coordination with local authorities and authorities from other departments (than those responsible for floods) was carried out in preparation of the FRMPs assessed, these included governmental departments, Non-Governmental Ogranisations (NGOs), utilities, transport, agriculture and professional institutes. In the five FRMPs assessed, mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders covered different levels (UoM level as well as that of catchments) and included a range of advisory groups. Flood risk governance There is evidence of coordination of the FRMPs with the RBMPs under the WFD for all FRMPs assessed. Areas for further development

The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the UK FRMPs assessed. Table 4 Areas for further development in the UK’s FRMPs Topic area Areas identified for further development Integration of previously reported information in the FRMPs There is no clear information whether conveyance routes have been taken into account and how they are used to set objectives and measures, in the English, Welsh or Northern Irish FRMPs assessed. Only the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP and the Scottish strategies provides information about the conclusions from the PFRAs or how they were used in the development of FHRMs. Not all of the FRMPs assessed provide summary maps of or links to the FHRMs. Some of the internet links to FHRMs provided in the FRMPs assessed are no longer working. Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk While some objectives could be measured, none have a quantitative target to achieve and in general the objectives are only descriptive. The Scottish FRM strategies, however, do provide indicators that can be used to measure progress towards objectives for each target area. Detailed information on what has been considered during the process of establishing the objectives is lacking in the FRMPs assessed. Planning/ implementation of measures and their prioritization for the achievement of objectives The method to demonstrate by how much a measure will contribute to the objectives is unclear or lacking. For example, a baseline has not been established for all FRMPs (Scottish FRM strategies were the exception), against which progress will be monitored and assessed. It is unclear how measures were prioritised in the English FRMPs. (For the FRMPs in Scotland and Northern Ireland, this information is provided in separate technical documents, ). The overall budget per UoM is not provided for the UoMs assessed with the exception of the UKGBNIIENB FRMP. For a significant proportion of the total measures across all UoMs in the United Kingdom did not report costs in WISE (38 %). It is indicated in the FRMPs that measures do not all have secured funding and are not guaranteed to be implemented . Consideration of climate change in the FRMPs assessed Even though different climate change scenarios were considered, there is a lack of detail on shifts in the occurrence of extreme events and changes in numerical recurrence times or on whether the main sources of flooding will change under the long-term climate change scenarios. Coordination between FRMPs and climate change adaptation strategies appears not to be systematic. Use of cost-benefit analysis in the FRMPs assessed For the FRMPs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, there is no explanation of what is included in the calculation of cost benefit analysis and for what measures it was undertaken for. . 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): ·Ensure that FRMPs, PFRAs/APSFRs and FHRMs refer to each other as appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public in an accessible format, including digitally. ·To be able to assess progress, the achievement of the objectives of the FRMPs should be measurable to the greatest extent possible. ·The methodology for assessing measures in terms of costs and benefits as well as its application and results of this analysis should be presented. ·The prioritisation of the measures should be better documented, including the process. ·In all FRMPs, the estimated cost should be reported for measures and an explanation of how a lack of funding may impact the implementation of the measures should be provided. ·Climate change should be considered more deeply in the second cycle, including how sources of flooding may change in the future, and changes in extreme events, as well as better integration with and references to the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1Reporting of the FRMPs The UK has reported 36 FRMPs in total: 14 FRMPs for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, each covering a single UoM; an additional eight separate FRMPs prepared at the level of the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) in Wales; and 14 Flood Risk Management Strategies for Scotland, covering sub-areas within UoM UK01 (Scotland) and UK02 (Solway Tweed). (When this report refers to “the FRMPs assessed”, it includes the two Scottish strategies reviewed under this exercise.) The UK has not yet reported an FRMP for Gibraltar (UKGI17). The UK did not make use of Article 13.3 of the FD, which allows Member States to make use of previous flood risk management strategies assessed (provided their content is equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive). 1.2Assessment of the FRMPs The approaches for FRMPs between Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England and Wales are different. For example, Scotland did not prepare its strategies at UoM level but rather at the level of local catchment areas and areas of management. The structure and content of the FRMPs across the jurisdictions differ. Therefore, a subset of UoMs and FRMPs have been selected for assessment with the aim to cover the four jurisdictions of the United Kingdom and thus the different methodological approaches taken. The UoMs and FRMPs covered by the assessment are:





Table 5 FRMPs and UoMs covered in the assessment UoM code UoM Name and FRMP assessed UK01 Clyde and Loch Lomond (C&LL, part of UK01 in Scotland); UK02 Solway (in the Scottish part of UK02); UK02 Solway Tweed (for the English Part of UK02) UK09 Severn (jointly managed by England and Wales) UKGBNIIENB Neagh Bann (Northern Ireland) The FRMP for Solway Tweed (English part) states that there are no known significant cross border flood risk issues along the main rivers between England and Scotland, .

2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment Each of the FRMPs refers to the PFRAs in the introductory sections to the FRMPs. (The United Kingdom applied Art. 13(1)(b) in England and Wales: under this provision, the UK did not undertake PFRAs in England and Wales, using FHRMs prepared before December 2010.) The conclusions of the PFRAs are discussed in detail only in the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP (in Section 5), where the conclusions for each Significant Flood Risk Area (SFRA) are discussed. Maps of the APSFRs are provided in some of the FRMPs assessed as follows: ·The Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP provides a map of Significant Flood Risk Areas (SFRA) across Northern Ireland and lists the ones relevant to Neagh Bann. ·A Flood Risk Area map is shown in the Severn (UK09) FRMP. ·No Flood Risk Areas are shown in the UK02 (Solway Tweed – English part) FRMP. ·In the Scottish FRMS (Clyde and Loch Lomond, UK01, and Solway, UK02) the Potentially Vulnerable Areas are shown on a map for each Local Plan District area. Links to maps of the APSFRs are not provided in the FRMPs assessed. There was little information provided within the FRMPs themselves about whether conveyance routes have been taken into account in the PFRAs and the FRMPs. In the Scottish strategies assessed (Clyde and Loch Lomond in UK01 and Solway in UK02), conveyance routes are discussed in the description of measures and their potential impacts. In the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP, conveyance routes are only briefly mentioned in the context of flood risk maps. One of the measures in the UK09 FRMP is to “Assess conveyance requirements and implement maintenance”. There is no reference to conveyance routes in the UK02 (English part) FRMP. 2.1.1Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) is an international UoM shared with the Republic of Ireland. It is indicated that there is coordination with the Republic of Ireland on all technical matters and proposed flood mitigation measures. The FRMP does not indicate whether cross-border flood risk areas were identified . 2.1.2Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHR maps In Section 4.1 of the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP, an overview of the PFRAs was provided, along with a summary of where further identification of new flood risk areas was undertaken. In Section 1.3 of the Scottish FRM strategies, the link between National Flood Risk Assessment, APSFRs and FHRMs is set out. There is no information provided in the English or Welsh FRMPs assessed on how the PFRAs were developed and used for the development of FHRMs, nor if there were changes in the flood risk mapping as a result of the PFRAs. 2.2Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps in the FRMPs Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) are presented only in some of the FRMPs assessed:

·In the Scottish FRMPs (Clyde and Loch Lomond in UK01 and Solway in UK02), no flood risk maps are reproduced. ·In Section 5 of the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP there are detailed flood extent maps presented for fluvial and seawater floods. ·In the English FRMPs assessed (Solway Tweed for the English part of UK02 and Severn for UK09, Severn, shared with Wales), flood risk maps have been reproduced for fluvial, seawater floods and floods from artificial water bearing infrastructure. The maps and statistics contained in the Solway Tweed and Severn FRMPs are said to be based on the Updated Flood Map for Surface Water (UMfSW) published in December 2013, but surface water flooding maps are not contained within the FRMP. None of the FRMPs assessed presents FHRMs that cover groundwater floods. Links to the FHRMs are provided in all five of the FRMPs assessed. However, some of the links provided are no longer working. The working links are: ·Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) and other UoMs in Northern Ireland: http://dfi-ni.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fd6c0a01b07840269a50a2f596b3daf6 ·Severn (UK09) and UK02 (Solway Tweed - English part) and other UoMs in England and Wales: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-districts-flood-risk-maps and https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/ ·Scottish FRMSs (Clyde and Loch Lomond, UK01, and Solway, UK02): http://map.sepa.org.uk/floodmap/map.htm 2.2.1 Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps In all the FRMPs, FHRMs have been used to develop the FRMPs. Based on the reporting sheets and the FRMPs assessed: ·FHRMs are used to set priorities for flood risk management (e.g. locations, economic activities, assets); ·FHRMs are used as a tool in the public consultation process; ·Measures have been defined based on the FHRM. The approaches vary across the five FRMPs assessed. In the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP, it is noted that flood maps were made available for public information and a publicity campaign was run to make the public aware of them. Whilst the flood risk maps are publicly available in rest of the UK, the other FRMPs do not detail how the maps were used in the public consultation process. In the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP, it is stated that flood maps were designed to enable flooding agencies, infrastructure providers and others to manage their work to reduce flood risk; encourage people living and working in areas prone to flooding to take appropriate action; and to inform anyone applying for planning permission if flooding is likely to be a material consideration. In the English FRMPs (Solway Tweed for the English part of UK02 and Severn, UK09) it is stated that in developing the proposed measures, conclusions were drawn from hazard and risk maps which help to identify risks and opportunities. In the Scottish strategies assessed (Clyde and Loch Lomond in UK01 and Solway in the Scottish part of UK02), it is stated that the FHRMs helped inform the selection of measures to manage flood risk in Potentially Vulnerable Areas. Target areas within the Potentially Vulnerable Areas have been set to focus measures. A qualifier is included which states that the target areas do not necessarily correspond to areas at risk in the flood mapping, . 2.3Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas The FRMP assessment looked for information on changes in the identification of APSFRs since December 2011, or in the FHRMs since December 2013, indicated in the FRMPs. It is not clear from the information provided in the FRMPs whether there have been any changes on the identification of APSFRs since December 2011. There is also very little information about whether there have been any changes to the FHRMs since December 2013. However, the Scottish strategies assessed (Solway in the Scottish part of UK02 and Clyde and Loch Lomond in UK01) do indicate that flood hazard and flood risk maps were developed by SEPA between 2012 and 2014. 2.4Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the FHRMs The FHRM assessment identified the following areas for further development for the UK: ·Scenarios, Article 6(3): According to Art. 6(3), flood hazard maps shall cover the geographical areas which could be flooded according to three scenarios: floods with low probability, medium probability and high probability, where appropriate. Some UoMs (e.g. UK_02_England, UK03, UK06 and UK12) did not report the maps for floods with a medium probability scenario.

·Hazards elements - Water depth/level: According to Art. 6(4)(b) Member States shall report for each probability scenario the flood extent and the water depth or level, as appropriate. Several UoMs (e.g. UK04, UK06 and UK07) did not show the water depth/level in the FHRMs. ·Adverse consequences - Type of economic activity: According to Art. 6(5)(b) flood risk maps shall show the potential adverse consequences associated with flood scenario in terms of type of economic activity. Most of the UoMs in the UK (UK_02_England, UK03, UK04, UK06, UK07, UK12 and UKGBNIIENB) did not show the type of economic activities in their FHRMs. ·Adverse consequences - industrial installation and WFD areas: According to Art. 6(5)(c) flood risk maps shall show the potential adverse consequences associated with a flood scenario in terms of location of Industrial Emissions Directive installations. Most of the UoMs in the UK (UK_02_England, UK_02_Scotland, UK03, UK04, UK06, UK07, UK12 and UKGBNIIENB) did not show the location of industrial installations in their FHRMs. ·Consequences on the environment – it appears that no potential adverse consequences on the environment were shown in the maps, in particular for low and medium probability fluvial floods. While these areas for further development identified in the earlier assessment of the FHRMs are not explicitly addressed within the FRMPs assessed or the reporting, a review of the FHRMs has found the following: ·For all the FRMPs assessed, maps for floods with a medium probability scenario were found. This also included Solway Tweed, for the English part of UK02, which had not previously, therefore this area for further development appears to have been addressed. ·The FHRMs were not reproduced or described within the FRMPs, but from a brief review of the mapping in the external links, it can be concluded that progress has been made towards addressing hazard elements and adverse consequences: oFor Northern Ireland, links to PDF documents are given in each area, which include risk maps of these scenarios (low, medium and high probability) containing data on the estimated number of inhabitants likely to be affected, the cost, as well as mapping environmentally sensitive sites nearby which could be at risk. The Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP explains that flood risk indicators were generated within 1km grid squares to assess the potential adverse consequences on the environment (not reproduced within the FRMP). No information on water depths was available. oFor England and Wales, in the “detailed” map view, flood depths (in millimetres) are available for each flood risk category for surface water flooding and for four flood risk scenarios (very low to high probability). No consequences of flooding were available. In the English FRMPs it is explained that a computer model was used to estimate the likelihood of flooding from rivers and the sea, and can be used in conjunction with receptor data to estimate the consequences. A summary of flood risk to the natural and historic environment across is provided in a table. oFor Scotland, data is shown on the map to show extent, such as the numbers of inhabitants at risk, economic and community activities at risk, and the environmental sites at risk for each likelihood level (low/medium/high). Water depths are also given for each likelihood. oFor Scotland, data on the map shows the environmental sites (which includes IPPC sites) at risk for each likelihood level. Consequently, the majority though not all of the previously identified areas for further development have been addressed in the time period between publication of the FHRMs and the assessment of the FRMPs. 2.5Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information. The following areas for further development were identified: ·There is no clear information whether conveyance routes have been taken into account and how they are used to set objectives and measures, in the English, Welsh and Northern Irish FRMPs assessed . ·Only the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP and the Scottish strategies provides information about the conclusions from the PFRAs or how they were used in the development of FHRMs.

3. Setting of Objectives 3.1Focus of objectives The focus of the objectives varies across the five FRMPs assessed:

·Objectives in the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP are split into economic, human health and social, and environmental objectives. The objectives are defined under these themes and are broken down further (with slightly more detail in the appendix) and include, as examples, reducing economic damages to properties, reducing the risk to life and raising awareness of the consequences of flood risk and mitigating the impact on priority species and habitats. The Appendix also links the objectives with the measures. ·In the FRMPs for the Severn (UK09) and Solway Tweed (English part of UK02), objectives are categorised as environmental, economic or social (people and communities). Objectives aim to minimise impacts of flooding, reduce flood risk, and enhance the natural environment where possible. More detailed objectives have been set for each catchment (sub-basin) in the UoMs. Some examples of objectives include: improving awareness in catchments which react rapidly to rainfall, reducing flood risk to residential properties and maintaining and enhancing habitats through flood risk management activities. ·In the Scottish strategies assessed – Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01) and Solway (in the Scottish part of UK02) – there were two general objectives: "avoid an overall increase in flood risk” and “reduce overall flood risk”. There are more objectives that are linked to the target areas such as “Reduce the economic damages and risk to people from surface water flooding in Erskine”, “Reduce the risk of flooding from the Gotter Water and River Gryfe to residential properties in Quarriers Village” or “Accept the current standard of protection offered by the Portpatrick Flood Protection Scheme”. In the Scottish strategies, the objectives include references to residential and non-residential properties, transport, community facilities, and risks to people. Environment is not addressed directly in the objectives, but it is dealt with in the commentary for all the relevant measures which are linked to the objectives. All the objectives are clearly linked to the measures. Consequently, in the FRMPs assessed: ·In all five FRMPs, the objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods. ·In some of the FRMPs, the objectives refer to measures that will be implemented. ·In some of the FRMPs, the objectives refer to non-structural measures. 3.2Specific and measurable objectives Overall, it is indicated where the objectives will be achieved and how; while some objectives are measurable, none have a quantitative target to achieve. Moreover, the FRMPs are not specific in terms of the timescales for the achievement of objectives. In the FRMPs assessed, all the objectives refer to a location. For the English FRMPs and Scottish Strategies assessed, the objectives are assigned to a specific catchment, water body or town specific level. An example objective is "To reduce the risk to life, health and wellbeing". The FRMP for Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) in Northern Ireland, on the other hand, only applies objectives for the whole UoM. The same is true for the Welsh objectives in the UK09 FRMP; there are, however, objectives set in the Local FRMPs that are specific to the local area. Only the Scottish FRM strategies provide indicators from which the objectives can be measured for each target area (e.g. Avoid an overall increase in flood risk: 3 900 residential properties; 900 non-residential properties and 8 600 people). Whilst the objectives of the other FRMPs assessed are only descriptive in form, each objective has measures linked with them in the FRMPs. The majority of the measures are specific in what they will achieve. For example: “Target resources to reduce the risk of flooding to communities with the highest flood risk”. However, there do not appear to be any specific numerical targets for achievement in any of the UoMs. Generic timelines for delivery of measures against the objectives are provided in each of the FRMPs e.g. ongoing or 2015-2021; however, the FRMPs do not specify that the objectives are to be achieved by this date. 3.3Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods The FRMPs have been set to reduce the adverse consequences from floods, namely: the number of fatalities and dwellings flooded, the adverse consequences on human health, cultural heritage, the environment and economic activities. Objectives refer to reductions in economic, social and environmental impacts in each of the UoMs assessed. 3.4Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding In all five FRMPs assessed, the objectives include the reduction of flood risk, a term which includes the likelihood of flooding. In the Neagh Bann FRMP, one of the main objectives is to reduce the likelihood of flooding. For the other FRMPs assessed there do not appear to be objectives that specifically refer to reducing the likelihood of flooding. 3.5Process for setting the objectives The objectives were generally established by the authorities for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, such as the Environment Agency in England and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. The FRMPs generally do not contain a lot of information on what has been considered in establishing the objectives. The Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP states that the draft objectives were consulted with stakeholders as part of the consultations on the draft FRMP. It was explained in the reporting sheets that SEPA set initial objectives based on the evidence on the causes and impacts of flooding. The initial objectives were then refined following engagement with local authorities and other stakeholders. In the Scottish FRMPs assessed, objectives were set for all APSFRs and at a regional scale. 3.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives The following good practice was identified: ·The objectives are specific in terms of what they are trying to achieve and where. Measures have been linked with the objectives.

The following areas for further development were identified: ·While some objectives could be measured, none have a quantitative target to achieve and in general the objectives are only descriptive (e.g. target resources to reduce the risk of flooding to communities with the highest flood risk). The Scottish FRM strategies however do provide indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the objectives for each target area. ·Information on what has been considered during the process of establishing the objectives is lacking for most FRMPs assessed.

4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives The United Kingdom has indicated, across all 15 UoMs that have reported, 9 055 individual measures and 336 aggregated measures. The total number of measures in the UK is thus 9 391. The FRMPs do not explain how individual and aggregated measures are defined. Some of the measures are assigned to more than one measure type. To compare the number of measures by type, a total count of the measures is used, which includes each time a measure is allocated to a measure type (this involves double-counting): this total is 9 888 measures. The range in number of measures reported for each UoM goes from 27 to 2 337 measures. The lowest numbers of measures are in the Northern Irish UoMs (from 27 to 42) and the highest numbers are in UK01 Scotland (2 337, 24 % of all measures reported for the UK). The measures reported cover all four aspects as well as “no action” and other measures, with the most measures being prevention, protection and preparedness measures. More specifically, the aspects covered are: no action (44 measures or around 0.4 % of the total); prevention (2 978 measures or about 30 % of the total); protection (3 359 measures or around 34 % of the total); preparedness (3 266 measures or around 33 % of the total); recovery and review (146 measures or around 1.5 % of the total) and other (95 measures or nearly 1 % of the total). Prevention, protection and preparedness measures are planned in all UoMs, while recovery and review, no action and other measures are not found in some of the UoMs. All measure types are covered. Please see Annex A for supplementary tables and charts on measures for this and subsequent questions in this section. 4.1Cost of measures Table 6 Estimated overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMPs Estimated overall budget of planned measures (2015-2021) in GBP UKGBNIIENB 144 844 000 Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs Only one of the five FRMPs assessed, Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB), presented an overview of the total costs of measures – shown in the table above. In Scotland this detail is contained in the Local FRMPs. In its reporting sheets, the UK provided information on the costs of 6 110 measures (or around 62 % of all measures reported) across all the UoMs. Three measures were reported as having been included in other programmes, one measure was reported as “NIL” for costs. The highest cost for a measure was between £350 m and £750 m. The majority of the measures for which this information is provided cost less than GBP 100 000 (about EUR 115 000) or between GBP 100 000 and 500 000 (about EUR 575 000). The highest costs are reported for protection measures and measures in the three Northern Irish UoMs (for further details see Tables A5 and A6 in Annex A). Among the five FRMPs assessed, the plan for the Neagh Bann UoM (UKGBNIIENB) was the only one to present overall cost forecast or budget for the measures planned: ·The Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP in Northern Ireland reported the costs by measure aspect: GBP 3 m for prevention measures (approximately EUR 3.4 m), GBP 137.6 m for protection measures (approximately EUR 155 m) and GBP 4.2 m (EUR 4.8 m) for preparedness – thus totalling around GBP 144.8 m, about EUR 164 m. This equates to 95 % of all costs going to protection measures, 2 % for prevention measures and 3 % for preparedness measures. ·The Flood Risk Management Strategy for Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01 Scotland) does not provide cost information. ·The English strategies assessed, Solway (UK09) FRMP and the Solway Tweed FRMP (UK02 - English part), reported that their measures do not all have secured funding and are not guaranteed to be implemented. Money is allocated to Risk Management Authorities based on government policy that gives the highest priority to the areas at highest risk. The Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP provided a detailed breakdown of the costs within the measure aspects, which included:

·Prevention: costs of Rivers Agency’s liaison with planning authorities regarding new development: these are the estimated costs for the provision of flood risk management advice to the government and local councils; ·Protection: costs of measures in Rivers Agency’s Capital Works Programme; costs associated with Rivers Agency’s proposed operation of the Homeowner Flood Protection Grant Scheme; costs associated with Stakeholder Groups formed to address the requirements of the FD; costs associated with drainage maintenance; costs associated with drainage and flood risk management activities by “Transport Northern Ireland”; costs associated with drainage and flood risk management activities by “Northern Ireland Water”; costs associated with drainage and flood risk management activities in the Northern Ireland Department of Regional Development (DRD) ‘Living with Water’ Programme; ·Preparedness: costs associated with Rivers Agency’s provision of Emergency Planning Expertise, Flood Warning, Informing and Awareness activities. 4.2Funding of measures Measures are proposed to be funded as follows: ·The Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP mentions funding sources, which include: the Rivers Agency of Northern Ireland, Transport Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Water. A Homeowner Flood Protection Grant Scheme was planned to be introduced by the regional government, which would improve the ability of householders and communities to enhance their property’s resistance to flooding through the provision of individual property protection measures (operated by the Rivers Agency). ·For Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01, Scotland), the FRMP describes key funding streams. Local authorities receive a funding settlement from the Scottish Government. Local authorities may then contribute funding to jointly deliver actions with partners such as National Park Authorities, Scottish Water, other Local Authorities, infrastructure providers and many others. A joint initiative between SEPA and the Met Office receives funding from the UK Government. Private investment also comes from Scottish Water for its own actions. ·For Solway (in the Scottish part of UK02), the Flood Risk Management Plan also notes that local authorities and the Scottish EPA receive a funding settlement from the Scottish Government. Private investment also comes from Scottish Water and Network Rail. ·For the Severn (UK09) FRMP, measures carried out by Risk Management Authorities are funded by the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in England and by the Welsh Government in Wales. Similarly, the funding in Solway Tweed (UK02 - English part) comes from DEFRA. This information is summarised in the following table. Table 7 Funding of measures UK01 C&LL UK02 Solway UK02 Solway Tweed UK09 Severn UKGBNIIENB 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 Local action groups ✔ Source: FRMPs 4.3Measurable and specific (including location) measures Only some of the FRMPs assessed 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. In the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP in Northern Ireland, measures for flood risk areas are described in general terms under the headings of preparedness, prevention and protection. The information provided is not sufficient to be measurable and no indicators are set out. The measures are listed in an appendix against the FRMP’s objectives.

In the FRMPs for Severn (UK09) and Solway Tweed (UK02 - English part) FRMPs in England, the measures are listed at a UoM level and catchment level. There is a brief description of the measures and timeline which generally links to the planning cycle. The responsible parties for the measures are identified. There is no linkage to specific objectives, just to the three broad categories of objectives (as noted in section 3, three broad categories for objectives are given: environmental, economic or social). In the Scottish strategies assessed (Clyde and Loch Lomond in UK01 and Solway in UK02), measures or actions are linked to the objectives. Each action has an indicative delivery timescale. There are indicators identified with the Potentially Vulnerable Areas, which are linked to the measures via the objective identifier code. The responsible bodies for individual measures (referred to as delivery leads) are identified and overview descriptions of how they will be achieved are provided. For each UoM the measures are specific to a geographical area, as summarised below: Table 8 Location of measures UK01 C&LL UK02 Solway UK02 Solway Tweed UK09 Severn UKGBNIIENB International National RBD/UoM ✔ ✔ Sub-basin ✔ APSFR or other specific risk area ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Water body level ✔ Local Plan District areas ✔ ✔ LLFA areas ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs The Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP has nine Significant Flood Risk Areas (SFRAs) where the measures have been defined to specific geographical areas and water bodies are named. There are also seven different types of regional measures e.g. Rivers Agency Watercourse Inspection and Maintenance, which are not specific to a geographic location. In the FRMPs for the Severn (UK09) and Solway Tweed (UK02 English part), many measures are specific to a catchment or smaller areas such as Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA) areas or defined key communities. There are some actions which apply across the whole Severn RBD. In the strategies for Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01) and Solway (in UK02, Scottish part), measures referred to as actions, are specific to areas at different scales. There are measures for the Local Plan District areas and measures specific to the Potentially Vulnerable Areas within them. 4.4Measures and objectives In its reporting sheets, the UK indicated 2 299 different objectives for the UoMs in the reporting sheets, for 6 079 different measures. It has not been possible to aggregate this information. All the FRMPs assessed link their measures to their objectives. The best example is in the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP, where the detailed objectives have been linked to the measures. This is done in a matrix style where a few objectives can be linked to a few different measures. In the Scottish strategies the objectives are also linked with the measures both descriptively and with referencing. For all other FRMPs assessed, the measures were only linked with the general objectives. However, there is no information on how and by how much the measures will contribute to the objectives, or that the objectives will be achieved by a certain set of measures. In the UK reporting sheets, the measures are reported against objectives for some of the Solway Tweed (UK02, English part) measures and Severn (UK09) measures and for all of the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) measures. 4.5Geographic coverage/scale of measures In its reporting sheets, the UK has reported the location of measures for the majority of measures. For the Solway Tweed (UK02, English part), Severn (UK09) and Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB), the level of location ranges from RBD, WFD catchments, flood risk areas, to local areas or specific place names. In the reporting, location is not provided for measures in the strategy for Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01), and information for some measures in the Severn (UK09) is missing. The UK reported information about the geographic coverage of all measures. This has been classified into the following categories: APSFR; Catchment; UoM; Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) Area; Local including towns/cities/boroughs/communities and other local areas; Strategic place; and Other for information that could not be categorised. Across all 15 UoMs reported the geographic coverage for almost one-third of measures is at APSFR level (3 076 out of 9 888 measures, 31 %), followed by local areas (2 493 measures, 25 %). The coverage of 1 471 measures is the LLFA area (15 %), that of 1 162 is the catchment area (12 %), and 370 measures (4 %), the UoM. Finally, 172 measures have a coverage of a strategic place (2 %), and the coverage of 1 144 measures appears falls into the “other” category (12 %). Preparedness and prevention measures are mainly attributed to APSFR, and protection measures mainly have a coverage of local areas. For more details see Tables A7 and A8 in Annex A. 4.6Prioritisation of measures Across all UoMs, the UK reported information to WISE about the priority of 6 117 measures (62 % of the total). The majority of the measures reported are categorised as of either moderate priority (2 524 measures out of the 6 117, 41 % of the total) and high (2 265 measures, 37 %) priority, especially for prevention and protection measures. The Humber (UK04) UoM has the highest proportion of critical priority measures of all UoMs (91). The Humber (UK04) also has the most very high priority measures (189), followed by the Thames UoM, UK06 (128). For the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) UoM, there are no measures with very high or critical priorities.

The category of priority was not reported for the Scotland UoM (UK01) or the Western Wales UoM (UK10); a high proportion were not reported for Solway Tweed (UK02, including both Scottish and English parts): (88 % of measures in this UoM). This is the case also for the Severn UoM, UK09 (50 %), and the Dee UoM, UK11 (76 %). For further details see Tables A9 and A10 in Annex A. For measures where the priority was not reported, the UK reported the timetable of implementation (see next page). In some cases, the FRMPs provide further information on priorities: although priorities for measures were not reported to WISE for the Scotland UoM (UK01), national and local priority rankings are provided in the Scottish FRM Strategies. The FRMPs assessed and the reporting sheets provide information on how priorities where set. In the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP, there is no methodology section. For each flood risk area, however, there is an overview of the flooding history, identification of potentially significant flood sources, and a flood risk assessment. Then the flood mitigation measures are proposed. Each scheme on the Department’s Capital Works Programme is assessed against the four criteria: degree of protection / risk of failure, economics, special consideration and financial control. A score was assigned to each scheme and the criteria are then weighted and scored to determine the final priority score of each individual scheme. The Severn (UK09) FRMP details how prioritisation is done for measures in Wales, but not those in England. In Wales, prioritisation is carried out for all measures across UoM, taking into account the risk calculation from the Communities at Risk Register, a tool that considers a number of factors to give an indication of where the most vulnerable communities at risk of flooding from main rivers and the sea are located across Wales. Other factors such as cost-benefit analysis are also considered (see section 6 for further details). In England, Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) prioritise public investment in flood and coastal risk management works based on DEFRA policy and Environment Agency guidance. No methodology is provided in the FRMPs assessed and there are no links to external guidance or methodologies. The Scottish strategies do not provide the methodology for how measures have been prioritised. The strategies note that prioritisation was based on funding assumptions about the funds that can be provided by the Scottish Government and the capacity of local authorities to deliver. In the reporting sheets, it is explained that to prioritise measures, SEPA considered the following criteria: flood risk, technical complexity, potential economic benefit, and non-monetary impacts on the community and the environment. In addition, local authorities provided additional evidence and identified local factors that might alter the order of delivery. The UK provided information about the timetable of all measures in its reporting sheets. The majority of the measures (5 558, 56 % of the total) are due to be implemented in the period 2015-2021, with protection measures most frequently (1 942) within this time frame, closely followed by prevention and preparedness measures. The second period reported most frequently is 2010-2045, with 1 813 measures in total (18 % of the total), most of which are preparedness measures. A significant proportion of the measures have been implemented before 2015 (763, 8 % of the total), especially for the Anglian UoM, UK05 (412 measures), and the Thames UoM, UK06 (173). In the Clyde and Loch Lomond UoM, UK01, and the Solway UoM (UK02 – Scottish part) the majority of measures are indicated for the period 2010-2045. For details, see Tables A11 and A12 in Annex A. 4.7Authorities responsible for implementation of measures In the reporting sheets, the UK gives information about the level of responsible authority for 8 746 measures (around 88 % of all measures), 1 142 being left with no information. The largest share of the measures reported are the responsibility of the Environment Agency (3 458 measures out of 8 746, 40 %), which is responsible for flood management in England, with the main focus being protection measures. The second largest responsibility is with the local authorities, again with their main focus on protection measures. The Lead Local Flood Areas are responsible for the majority of recovery and review measures. The smallest number of measures (263 measures, 3 %) are assigned to the ‘individual’ level of responsibility. For further details see Tables A13 and A14 in Annex A. 4.8Progress of implementation of measures In the reporting sheets, the UK gives information about the progress of implementation for all measures. The majority of measures are classified as ongoing (5 674 out of 9 888, 57 %), followed by those not started (3 870, 39 %). Across the UK, 90 measures (1 %) were reported to be undergoing construction and 254 (3 %) have been completed. For further details see Tables A15 and A16 in Annex A. 4.9Measures taken under other Community Acts Member States were asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure has been implemented: the UK did not, however, report on this. Nor did the FRMPs provide information on measures taken under other Community Acts. 4.10Specific groups of measures With regard to spatial planning/land use measures, measures are indicated in four of the five FRMPs assessed: ·For both the Solway Tweed (UK02, English part) and Severn (UK09) UoMs, measures under types M21 (preventing new receptors) and M22 (removing receptors) are reported. Measures under the M21 category for the Severn include: “Work with others to avoid inappropriate development”, which is the responsibility of the Environment Agency. No details could be found on M22 measures in the Severn FRMP or spatial planning and land use measures in the Solway Tweed FRMP. ·For the Scotland UoM (UK01), 215 M21 measures are reported. Both FRMPs assessed, Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01) and Solway (in UK02) contain measures for spatial planning. Separately, the local strategies each have an annex which details the measures at a national level under land use planning policies. In the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) UoM in Northern Ireland, no spatial planning or land use measures are identified in the reporting sheets. However, in the FRMP it is highlighted that planning and flood risk is a regional prevention measure and that a new planning policy statement was adopted which encourages a precautionary approach to development, with the aim of preventing development that may be at risk of flooding or that may increase the risk. The reporting sheets also highlight that Northern Ireland has had strict planning policies in place to prevent inappropriate development that may increase the risk of flooding since the introduction of a planning policy statement, “Planning and Flood Risk” in 2006: the continued strict application of the planning policy and the new policy are expected to prevent increased flood risk from new developments in the future. There is no information whether the spatial planning framework has evolved since 2000.

Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in some, but not all, of the five FRMPs assessed. In the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP, there is information on natural flood risk management measures that will be considered in the options appraisals for the flood studies. Proposed measure may include upstream flood storage, removal of existing flood banks to reconnect rivers with their natural flood plains (N03), removing existing culverts to restore natural river channels and the creation of wider and more environmentally sensitive two-stage channels (N08). One of the Welsh national measures is to “seek opportunities and influence others to utilise natural flood risk management measures where appropriate.” Many of the measures identified in the Severn (UK09) FRMP involve natural flood management and runoff and catchment management (M31 type measures). Among other actions, sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) protocols are promoted. No natural flood management measures have been found in the Solway Tweed FRMP (UK02, English part). For Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01), the strategy reports that natural flood management actions were recommended in areas where they could contribute to the management of flood risk. Natural flood management studies (i.e. pilot studies) have been identified for three potentially vulnerable areas. There are also some measures which involve implementation, such as “Native woodland planting in the upper catchment…The woodland will help to slow and reduce runoff into the river which could reduce the impact from high likelihood flooding.” Natural flood risk management studies have also been proposed for Solway (in UK02), such as a study to reduce the risk of river flooding to residential and non-residential properties in Ecclefechan. Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. All five FRMPs assessed refer to biodiversity and coordination with biodiversity authorities or partnerships. The Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP refers to the protection of priority species and habitats in one of the environmental objectives. In the Solway Tweed FRMP (UK02, English part), a coastal process and strategy study is recommended to consider the internationally designated sites in Moricambe Bay in the managed realignment of flood defences. In the Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01) strategy, biodiversity and habitats are mentioned in the section of the measure descriptions which summarises the environmental impacts. The only FRMP that appears to consider navigation and port infrastructure in the consideration of measures is the Solway Tweed (UK02, English part), with the measure “Promote a flood risk and coastal adaptation study for Port Carlisle and access road to raise awareness and encourage individual property flood defences if appropriate”. No reference has been found in the five FRMPs assessed to 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 role of insurance policies is discussed in two of the five FRPMs assessed, with regard to the recovery from flooding, preparedness/resilience to flood or other issues. The Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP includes a measure “to work with the insurance industry to assist them in introducing ‘FloodRe’ to Northern Ireland to help address long term flood insurance affordability issues.” The Severn (UK09) FRMP includes measures to help the insurance industry to be prepared by understanding the flood risk assessments and to improve communications with the insurance industry. The other three FRMPs assessed do not include measures relating to insurance policies. The five FRMPs assessed do not provide information about the types of insurance currently available for potential flooding areas. The Neagh Bann FRMP includes a measure with another type of economic instrument: A Homeowner Flood Protection Grant Scheme. This is intended to improve the ability of householders and communities to enhance the resistance of property to flooding, through the provision of individual property protection measures (this would be operated by the Rivers Agency). 4.12Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP The Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP states that progress will be monitored annually and reported to the European Commission. In the Scottish strategies, it is stated that the lead local authorities will provide an interim report on the progress of delivering the measures between two and three years after its publication, and a final report will be prepared at the end of the first planning cycle. In the FRMPs for Solway Tweed (UK02, English part) and Severn (UK09), it is stated that in England, the Environment Agency will report progress annually to the relevant Regional Flood and Coastal Committees; the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales will review the FRMP every six years. A baseline does not appear to have been set in the FRMPs assessed from which progress could be monitored. However, in the Scottish strategies the appraisal baseline is defined as “the existing level of flood risk under the current flood risk management regime”. 4.13Coordination with the Water Framework Directive The table below shows how the development of the FRMPs has been coordinated with the development of the second RBMPs under the WFD. Table 9Coordination of the development of the FRMPs with the development of the second River Basin Management Plans of the WFD FRMPs UKGBNIIENB UK01 C&LL UK09 Severn UK02 Solway Tweed UK02 Solway Integration of FRMP and RBMP into a single document Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP ✔ ✔ Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD ✔ ✔ The objectives of the FD were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in the FRMP The RBMP Programme of Measures 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 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 assessed refer to the necessity of coordination between the FRMPs and RBMPs, and the obligation to foster the achievement of the WFD objectives, which often leads to the selection of sustainable solutions, like NWRMs including SuDS. NWRMs measures and SuDs measures are proposed in some but not all of the FRMPs. The boundaries of the UoMs match those of the RBDs, and the same catchment (sub-basin) boundaries are utilised in the FRMPs as well as the RBMPs.

In the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP, it is reported that there is continued engagement between the Rivers Agency for Northern Ireland, the competent authority for the FD and Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), the competent authority for the WFD, through an interdepartmental steering group and local Flood Forums. In addition, this FRMP has an objective “To support the objectives of the WFD and contribute to the achievement of good ecological potential/status for water bodies”. In the Severn (UK09) FRMP, it is reported that the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales lead on the development of both FRMPs and RBMPs. The FRMP measures are linked to RBMP and the WFD objectives, so that, according to the FRMP, the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales know where flood risk projects contribute to environment outcomes. The WFD was also considered in the objective setting in Severn (UK09) and Solway Tweed (UK02, English part) FRMPs. In the Clyde and Loch Lomond (UK01) and Solway (UK02, Scottish part) strategies, it is reported that the Scottish EPA is leading the delivery of the RBMPs and the Flood Risk Management Strategies and has worked to ensure integration and coordination between them. The UK has associated the measures in the FRMPs to the Key Type of Measures (KTM) of the RBMPs. KTM codes are provided for three UoMs (UK09 – Severn, UK10 - Western Wales, and UK11 – Dee). For UK09, measures under the following KTM codes are indicated: ·KTM6 – Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity ·KTM7 – Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows ·KTM14 – Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty ·KTM23 – Natural water retention measures 4.14Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures The following good practices were identified: ·Measures are clear in terms of their geographic location and coverage, responsible authority, general timetable. ·Promotion of sustainable land use practices and natural flood risk management has been planned in all of the FRMPs. ·In some of the FRMPs, economic instruments for flood risk management such as insurance has been supported. ·There is evidence of coordination between the FRMPs and the RBMPs for all of the UoMs assessed. ·The UK provides cost estimations for a large number of measures across all of its UoMs in the reporting sheets. The following areas for further development were identified: ·The method to demonstrate by how much a measure will contribute to the objectives in unclear or lacking. For example, a baseline has not been established for all FRMPs (Scottish FRM strategies were the exception), against which progress will be monitored and assessed. ·It is unclear how measures were prioritised in the English FRMPs. ·The overall budget per UoM is not provided for the UoMs assessed, with the exception of the UKGBNIIENB FRMP. A significant proportion of the total measures across all UoMs in the United Kingdom did not have reported costs (38 %). It is indicated that in the FRMPs that measures do not all have secured funding and are not guaranteed to be implemented.



5. Consideration of climate change Climate change was considered in all five FRMPs assessed. Only one of the five FRMPs assessed refer to a national Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. In Northern Ireland, the FRMP for Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) refers to the Northern Ireland Climate Change Adaptation Programme, published early in 2014, in their FRMP and provides links, however these no longer work. No reference was found in the Scottish strategies assessed, for Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01) and Solway (in the Scottish part of UK02). The other two FRMPs assessed (Solway Tweed, UK02, and Severn, UK09) discuss climate change adaptation but have not made specific reference to a national Climate Change Adaptation Strategy in their FRMPs. All five FRMPs consider climate change scenarios, though the timeframes vary across the UK. In Northern Ireland, climate change flood hazard maps illustrate the estimated flood plains for the years 2030 and 2100 and are based on the best available predictions for the meteorological conditions and sea levels for that time. The Scottish strategies and the FRMPs for the English part of the Solway Tweed (UK02) and for the Severn (UK09) refer to a 2080 scenario from the UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) and the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) respectively. The FRMP for the Solway Tweed (UK02, English part) provides further detail, considering scenarios from 1990 to 2025, 2026 to 2050, 2051 to 2080 and 2081 to 2115. All strategies assessed refer to an increase in heavy rain or greater extremes in weather which may lead to more frequent and severe flooding in the future, but no information is provided in relation to changes in numerical recurrence times. No detail was found in the FRMPs assessed how the main sources of flooding are expected to change under long term climate change scenarios. 5.1Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change Measures related to climate change are described in the FRMPs for England: the Solway Tweed (English part of UK02) and Severn (UK09) strategies assessed mention incorporating allowances for climate change into flood risk management works and identifying where working with natural processes can help improve resilience to climate change. In Northern Ireland, the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP states that preventative measures take account of climate change. The Scottish strategies assessed (Clyde and Loch Lomond in UK01 and Solway in UK02) refer to measures to study flood risk and any changes in the future due to climate change. Climate change was not explicitly indicated for other measures in the FRMPs assessed. For instance, there is no information to suggest that climate change was considered with regard to measures to reduce pollution risk in flood prone areas, spatial planning or land use measures. Reference to the consideration of climate change in economic instruments was not found for the majority of the FRMPs assessed. However, the Severn FRMP (UK09) refers to a measure that involves working with the insurance industry to make the best use of risk information under a changing climate. As mentioned in section 4, the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP includes a measure “to work with the insurance industry to assist them in introducing ‘FloodRe’ to Northern Ireland to help address long term flood insurance affordability issues”. The majority of the FRMPs assessed do not mention climate change with regard to structural measures. The Severn FRMP (UK09), however, includes measures that incorporate climate change into flood risk management works such as including additional provision during design and construction to address climate change (e.g. larger wall foundations). In addition, several UK09 measures refer to raising defences in certain areas in response to climate change. The measures in this FRMP also include identifying where working with natural processes can help improve resilience to climate change. While this may be a no-regret measure, neither this nor the other FRMPs assessed refer specifically to ‘no-regret’ measures. One of the five FRMPs assessed mentions climate change as an argument for increased operational measures associated with existing flood defences: the Severn FRMP (UK09) includes measures that incorporate climate change implications in areas including culvert inspection, asset maintenance regimes and raising outfalls. 5.2Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change The following good practices were identified: ·All five FRMPs consider climate change scenarios, though the timeframes vary across the UK. ·The development of further studies to identify the effects of climate change is part of the measures planned in some of the FRMPs assessed. The following area for further development was identified: ·Even though different climate change scenarios were considered, the FRMPs do not provide details on possible shifts in the occurrence of extreme events and changes in numerical recurrence times or whether the main sources of flooding will change under the long-term climate change scenarios. ·Coordination between FRMPs and the climate change adaptation strategies does not appear to be systematic.

6. Cost-benefit analysis

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) appears to have been used in the prioritisation and planning of measures for some of the FRMPs assessed, but only limited details are provided: ·In the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP, it is briefly mentioned that maintenance and capital programmes are evaluated using cost-benefit criteria prior to inclusion in the annual works programme; further information is not provided. ·For Wales, the FRMP for the Severn, UK09, explains that the prioritisation of measures is done at a Wales-wide level and considers CBA. It is also stated that all large flood alleviation schemes in Wales are appraised to assess options and to understand the costs and benefits, which is done in accordance with Treasury guidance. ·For England, it is not clear if CBA was used (UK02 Solway Tweed and UK09 Severn – English parts): no methodology is provided in the FRMPs and there are no links to external guidance or methodologies. ·The Scottish reporting sheets explain that measures were prioritised based on criteria that includes potential economic benefits, and non-monetary impacts on the community and the environment. It is noted in the Scottish strategies that the measures have been appraised for their costs and benefits to ensure the right combinations of measures are identified and prioritised. The Benefit Cost Ratio is reported for some schemes in the FRM strategies. Further detail is said to be found in the Strategic Appraisal Methodology on the SEPA website. However, no link is provided and the methodology could not be found . It is unclear from the FRMPs assessed for which types of measures CBA has been used. Multiple benefits are mentioned as a concept in two of the FRMPs assessed, but there is no information on how it has been implemented or if it has been included in CBA: for example, in the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP, multiple benefits and partnership working/funding for the implementation of natural flood management measures is highlighted; the Severn (UK09) FRMP states that actions under its framework should provide multiple benefits. The Neagh Bann UoM (UKGBNIIENB) is an international UoM shared with the Republic of Ireland. However, no information was found in the FRMP whether a CBA was used to assess measures with transnational effects. 6.1Good practices and areas for further development The following area for further development was identified: ·For the FRMPs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, there is no explanation of what is included in the cost benefit analysis and for what measures it was undertaken for .

7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation 7.1Competent authorities Based on the FRMPs and the information provided in the reporting sheets, the Competent Authorities and the Units of Management identified for the FD have not changed. The United Kingdom has not reported new information on Competent Authorities to WISE since 2010. 7.2Public information and consultation The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the five FRMPs 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 10Methods used to inform the public and interested parties of the FRMPs UKGBNIIENB UK02 Solway UK01 C&LL UK02 Solway Tweed UK09 Severn Media (papers, TV, radio) ✔ ✔ ✔ Internet ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Digital social networking ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Printed material ✔ ✔ ✔ Direct mailing Invitations to stakeholders ✔ ✔ ✔ Local Authorities ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Meetings ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs The consultation in the five FRMPs assessed appears to have been carried out in a similar manner, using online webpages and engagement at a local level. The details of the means of informing public were as follows:

For Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB), local television, radio and newspapers were used, as well as direct invitations to stakeholders. Information about the consultation was advertised in newspapers as well as online, on the websites of DARD and Rivers Agency. The PFRAs were made available for public consideration and a publicity campaign was run over local television, radio and newspapers to make the public aware of flood maps. In the Scottish strategies, consultation was held through Local Advisory Groups and stakeholders were invited to provide advice. Advertisements were placed in a number of national and local publications, notices were placed on social media, and promotional materials and support were provided to local authorities for community events. In England and Wales, the consultation was also held by local authorities and there was a dedicated webpage for the consultation. The consultation was promoted through social media with a series of tweets at the launch, mid and end of the consultation period. An email was also sent out at the launch, during the middle and at the end of consultation to stakeholders to encourage them to respond to the consultations. The consultation was mentioned in various newsletters including the National Flood Forum and a newsletter for Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs) . The table below shows how the actual consultation was carried out: Table 11 Methods used for the actual consultation UKGBNIIENB UK02 Solway UK01 C&LL UK02 Solway Tweed UK09 Severn Via Internet ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Digital social networking Direct invitation ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Exhibitions Workshops, seminars or conferences ✔ ✔ Telephone surveys Direct involvement in drafting FRMP Source: FRMPs The main mechanism for carrying out the actual consultation was via the internet and direct invitation for comments from stakeholders. In Northern Ireland, details of the consultation were advertised on DARD’s website and stakeholders were invited to provide comments for a six-month consultation period (22 December 2014 - 22 June 2015). The timing of the consultation was coordinated with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency’s public consultation on its second Draft RBMP under the WFD, to encourage and provide an efficient method for parties with a common interest in the objectives of both Directives. In Scotland, the primary route for consultation was via an online hub that enabled the public to find information on flood risk management planning using a postcode search or interactive map. Paper copies of the draft documents were also made available. The consultation period lasted six months (December 2014 and June 2015). In England and Wales, a three-month public consultation took place from 10 October 2014 until 31 January 2015. A wide range of engagement activities were carried out at a national level to promote the FRMP consultation. A number of workshops were held before and during the consultation period, with organisations from a range of sectors, to discuss the consultations. The consultation was on the agenda at a number of national meetings and events. In England several workshops covered both the RBMPs and the FRMPs (e.g. Modified waters workshop, National liaison panel workshop (also covering river basin management strategies assessed) and estuaries and coasts sub-group. The table below shows how the documents for the consultation were provided: Table 12 Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation UKGBNIIENB UK02 Solway UK01 C&LL UK02 Solway Tweed UK09 Severn Downloadable ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Direct mailing (e-mail) Direct mailing (post) Paper copies distributed at exhibitions Paper copies available in municipal buildings (town hall, library etc.) ✔ ✔ ✔ Paper copies at the main office of the competent authority Source: FRMPs The main way documents were provided, was to make them available to download via the consultation webpages and printed copies were available on request. Paper copies do not appear to have been made available in the English and Welsh UoMs assessed. 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 UKGBNIIENB UK02 Solway UK01 C&LL UK02 Solway Tweed UK09 Severn Civil Protection Authorities such as Government Departments responsible for emergency planning and coordination of response actions ✔ ✔ ✔ Flood Warning / Defence Authorities ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Drainage Authorities ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Emergency services ✔ Water supply and sanitation ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Agriculture / farmers ✔ Energy / hydropower Navigation / ports ✔ Fisheries / aquaculture ✔ Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) NGO's including nature protection, social issues (e.g. children, housing) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Consumer Groups Local / Regional authorities ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Academia / Research Institutions

Source: FRMPs Not all the stakeholders consulted are listed in the English and Welsh FRMPs assessed, but the strategies assessed indicate that meetings were held with local groups (e.g. Local Authority Flood Risk Management Capacity Building Programme and the Local Government Association coastal special interest group) and with the water industry (e.g. water Industry sector workshop in 2015). The Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP contains a list of stakeholders consulted, which includes a range of governmental departments, NGOs, utilities, transport, agriculture and professional institutes (e.g. Institute of Civil Engineers). For Scotland, the stakeholders consulted were part of the Local Advisory Groups, which included representatives from a range of sectors, including government agencies, local authorities, non-government organisations, utility companies and land and asset managers. 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 UKGBNIIENB UK02 Solway UK01 C&LL UK02 Solway Tweed UK09 Severn Regular exhibitions Establishment of advisory groups ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Involvement in drafting ✔ ✔ Emails and meetings ✔ Formation of alliances Source: FRMPs In Northern Ireland, a consultation network was set up to ensure all relevant stakeholders had an opportunity to participate in discussion and exchange of information and views in the preparation of the FRMP. Within this network there were three main groups: a FD Steering Group, a FD Stakeholder Group, and Flood Forum groups for each RBD. In the Scottish strategies assessed, it is described how two public consultations were held by SEPA, the first on a general approach to planning and the second held jointly with local authorities on understanding flooding in priority areas and the objectives needed to manage flooding. The Scottish Strategies have benefited from local advisory groups, which include representatives from a variety of sectors including government agencies, local authorities, NGO’s, utility companies and land managers. There is also a cross border advisory group. For England and Wales, the approach to promote the consultation locally was predominately via meetings with stakeholders. Natural Resources Wales and the Environment Agency also promoted the consultation locally through periodic Strategic Partnership meetings between July 2014 - January 2015, and through representation at the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee meetings.



7.4Effects of consultation The table below shows the effects of consultation: Table 15 Effects of consultation FRMP UKGBNIIENB UK02 Solway UK01 C&LL UK09 Severn UK02 Solway Tweed 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 No information/details ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs An overview of the changes made to the FRMPs assessed as a result of consultation is not consistently provided. One FRMP, for Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB), provides a summary of the changes in an appendix. Examples include: ·Plan objectives were revised to make it clear the cost of flood damage to infrastructure was included in the objective to reduce economic losses. ·The Plan was revised to ensure that the linkages between the various flood management groups and programmes were more clearly defined. ·The Plan was updated to include details of the current position in relation to potential contribution that NFM measures could make within the sustainable catchment based approach to flood risk management. ·The Plan was revised to ensure that all of the important elements and benefits of community emergency planning are more fully described.

For the ten English and Welsh FRMPs, a separate document with the responses to the consultation was produced that covered all UoMs, one for England and one for Wales. A summary of the consultation responses covering the whole of Scotland was published. 7.5Strategic Environmental Assessment All the FRMPs assessed underwent a strategic environmental assessment to assess significant environmental effects of the flood risk management measures. The Strategic Environmental Assessments were published in an environmental report and were consulted with the public. 7.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance The following good practices were identified: ·Extensive coordination with local authorities and authorities from other departments (than those responsible for floods) was carried out in preparation of the FRMPs assessed, these included governmental departments, NGOs, utilities, transport, agriculture and professional institutes. ·In the five FRMPs assessed, mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders covered different levels (UoM level as well as that of catchments) and included a range of advisory groups. Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures provided by the UK in the reporting sheets. These tables and charts were used for the preparation of section 4 on measures. Background & method This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Strategies assessed (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, part 1 (UoMs with over 401 measures) Figure A2 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect, part 2 (UoMs with up to 401 measures) Figure A3 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect Figure A4 – Visualisation of Table A5: Cost (in GBP) per measure aspect Figure A5 – Visualisation of Table A6: Cost (in GBP) per UoM Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A7: Geographic coverage of the measures by measure aspect Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A8: Geographic coverage of the measures by UoM Figure A8 - Visualisation of Table A9: Category of priority by measure aspect Figure A9 - Visualisation of Table A10: Category of priority by UoM

Figure A10 – Visualisation of Table A11: Timetable per measure aspect Figure A11 - Visualisation of Table A12: Timetable per UoM Figure A12 - Visualisation of Table A13: Level of responsibility by measure aspect Figure A13 - Visualisation of Table A14: Level of responsibility by UoM Figure A14 - Visualisation of Table A15: Progress of implementation by measure aspect Figure A15 - Visualisation of Table A16: 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 agg