EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 81 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Italy 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) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of contents Acronyms Introduction Overview Overview of the assessment Good Practices Areas for further development Recommendations 1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1 Reporting of the FRMPs 1.2 Assessment of the FRMPs 2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1 Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 2.1.1 Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 2.1.2 Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHR maps 2.2 Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs 2.2.1 Maps for shared flood risk areas 2.2.2 Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 2.3 Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas

2.4 Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps 2.5 Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information 3. Setting of Objectives 3.1 Focus of objectives 3.2 Specific and measurable objectives 3.3 Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 3.4 Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 3.5 Process for setting the objectives 3.6 Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives 4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 4.1 Cost of measures 4.2 Funding of measures 4.3 Measurable and specific (including location) measures 4.4 Measures and objectives 4.5 Geographic coverage/scale of measures 4.6 Prioritisation of measures 4.7 Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 4.8 Progress of implementation of measures 4.9 Measures taken under other Community Acts 4.10 Specific groups of measures

4.11 Recovery from and resilience to flooding 4.12 Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 4.13 Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 4.14 Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures 5. Consideration of climate change 5.1 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 Location of measures Geographic coverage Measure details: objectives Objectives Category of priority Timetable Measure details: authorities Measure details: progress Measure details: other Annex A1: Overview of the Italian FRMPs internet links reported Annex A2: Objectives in the five FRMPs assessed Annex B: Definitions of measure types Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) Acronyms APSFR Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis EEA European Environment Agency FD Floods Directive FHRM Flood Hazard and Risk Map FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NWRM Natural Water Retention Measures PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments PoM Programme of Measures RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment UoM Unit of Management WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe

Introduction The Floods Directive (FD) (2007/60/EC) requires each Member State (MS) to assess its territory for significant risk from flooding, to map the flood extent, identify the potential adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity in these areas, and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this flood risk. By the end of 2011, Member States were to prepare Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) to identify the river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding (Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk – APSFRs). By the end of 2013, Flood Hazard & Risk Maps (FHRMs) were to be drawn up for such areas. On this basis, Member States were to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by the end of 2015. This report assesses the FRMPs for Italy 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: Italy has designated 47 Units of Management (UoM); FRMPs are prepared in some cases at UoM level, in some cases at the level of the eight River Basin Districts (RBDs) designated under the Water Framework Directive. Due to the high number of FRMPs prepared in Italy, the assessment has focused on a selected set of plans, chosen to cover both UoM and RBD level plans along with a broad range of methodological approaches. The following FRMPs were reviewed: oITA (Eastern Alps) RBD: this FRMP was prepared at RBD level. Within the FRMP, the assessment looked in particular at the Isonzo UoM (ITN004), part of a transboundary catchment area with Slovenia. oITE (Central Apennines) RBD: this FRMP covers the entire RBD and multiple UoMs. oThe joint FRMP for two UoMs, the Sangro Interregional Basin (ITI023) and Abruzzo Region (ITR131) UoMs: both areas lie within the ITE Central Apennines RBD. oFRMP for the single UoM covering the Puglia Region and the Ofanto River interregional basin (ITR161I020). oFRMP for the Sardinia Region (ITR201): this is an example of an FRMP that covers an entire UoM that also matches the RBD territory (ITR201 was also covered in the FHRM assessment).



Overview Figure 1 Map of Units of Management Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) Italy has designated 47 UoMs, covering three types of basins: basins of national interest (e.g. Po and Tiber); interregional basins (typically smaller rivers that cross regional boundaries, often between two regions e.g. the Sangro between Abruzzo and Molise); regional basins, covering one or more river catchments within a regional territory e.g. Sicily and Veneto. Before the WFD, water governance in Italy followed the organisational pattern used for the UoMs; with the WFD, Italy established eight RBDs, aggregating many previous basins. Under the Floods Directive, Italy’s FRMPs were prepared at RBD level and, with greater detail, at the level of individual UoMs within the RBDs . Italy’s FRMPs were approved by RBD authorities in March 2016 and by the national Council of Ministers in February 2017. An exception is the Sicily FRMP, which has not yet been approved, according to information provided by the ISPRA, the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research.

Italy has not uploaded FRMPs to European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE, nor has it indicated the total number of FRMPs; nonetheless, for each UoM, internet links are provided to the FRMP and other relevant documents. In addition, Italy has uploaded a file (UoM_RBD.xls) that lists all the units of management and their competent authorities, organised by RBD. Based on the FRMPs assessed, Italy's plans vary significantly in terms of the amount of information provided. For example, the FRMP for ITA (Eastern Alps RBD) includes a range of details, such as the cost of each measure, that are not found in other FRMPs: for example, the FRMP that covers both the Sangro Interregional Basin (ITI023) and the Abruzzo Region (ITR131) does not provide this information nor a discussion on links with the WFD and RBMP, a topic included in the FRMP for ITA. A few common approaches were identified: for example, all five FRMPs assessed follow the same structure for their objectives; and four of the five FRMPs assessed used a national multi-criteria methodology to prioritise their measures. The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in Italy, including the UoM code, the name, and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if all documents required for each UoM were submitted to European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE – the FRMP as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML. (As noted above, no FRMPs were submitted.) Table 1 Overview of UoMs in Italy UoM Names Number of APSFRs XML Reported PDF Reported ITI012 Bradano No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITI014 Fiora No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITI015 Fortore No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITI017 Lemene No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITI018 Magra No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITI021 Reno No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITI022 Saccione No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITI023 Sangro No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITI024 Sinni No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITI025 Sele No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITI026 Fissero-Tartaro-Canalbianco No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITI027 Trigno No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITI028 Tronto No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITI029 Noce No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITI01319 Conca-Marecchia No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITN001 Adige No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITN002 Arno No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITN003 Brenta-Bacchiglione No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITN004 Isonzo No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITN005 Liri-Garigliano No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITN006 Livenza No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITN007 Piave No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITN008 Po No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITN009 Tagliamento No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITN010 Tevere No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITN011 Volturno No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR051 Regionale Veneto No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR061 Regionale Friuli Venezia Giulia No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR071 Regionale Liguria No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR081 Regionale Emilia Romagna No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR091 Regionale Toscana Costa No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR092 Regionale Toscana Nord No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR093 Regionale Toscana Ombrone No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR111 Regionale Marche No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR121 Regionale Lazio No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR131 Regionale Abruzzo No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR141 Regionale Molise - Biferno e minor No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR151 Regionale Campania Nord Occidentale No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR152 Regionale Destra Sele No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR153 Regionale Sinistra Sele No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR154 Regionale Sarno No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR161I020 Regionale Puglia e Interregionale Ofanto No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR171 Regionale Basilicata No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR181I016 Regionale Calabria e Interregionale Lao No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR191 Regionale Sicilia No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITR201 Regionale Sardegna No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No ITSNP01 Serchio No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) Yes No Links to the FRMPs can be found via the following web page: · http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/pre_meteo/idro/Piani_gest.html This page provides links to the FRMP pages of the eight RBDs. From the FRMP pages of the eight RBDs, there are links to the FRMP pages of lower-level UoMs.

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 All five FRMPs assessed set out objectives. For all five, the objectives are grouped around four themes – reduction of risk (some FRMPs refer to reduction of adverse consequences) to human health, cultural heritage, environment and economic activities. Italy's 47 reporting sheets provide objectives for all UoMs. The structure of four themes is used for nearly all UoMs (though Italy's largest UoM, the Po, ITN008, uses a different structure, as do a few other UoMs, in addressing risks to human health, cultural heritage, environment and economic activities). FRM objectives relate to... ...the reduction of potential adverse consequences Strong evidence Three of the five FRMPs assessed refer directly to the reduction of adverse consequences on human health, cultural heritage, environment and economic activities. The other two FRMPs assessed refer to risk reduction, which includes reduction of potential adverse consequences of flooding. According to Italy's reporting sheets, nearly all UoMs follow one or the other approach (Italy's largest UoM, the Po, uses a different approach but its objectives also address reduction of potential adverse consequences). ...to the reduction of the likelihood of flooding Some evidence The objectives of the two of the five FRMPs assessed refer explicitly to the reduction of risk, which includes both adverse consequences as well as the reduction of the likelihood of flooding. ...to non-structural initiatives Some evidence The objectives of the five FRMPs assessed do not refer explicitly to non-structural initiatives (though all the FRMPs assessed include non-structural measures). The reporting sheet for the Po UoM (ITN008) lists as the first of its five objectives a non-structural initiative, "improving knowledge of [flood] risk". FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to... ...human health Strong evidence As noted above, for all five FRMPs assessed, objectives are grouped around four themes - reduction of risk for human health, cultural heritage, environment and economic activities. This approach is reported for nearly all of Italy's UoMs (and those FRMPs that follow a different presentation of objectives, such as the Po UoM, ITN008, have indicated that they address human health, cultural heritage, environment and economic activities). ...economic activity Strong evidence See above under human health. In addition, the Po UoM (ITN008), which follows a different structure, includes as one of its five objectives the defence of cities and metropolitan areas and cites their political, economic and financial roles. ...environment Strong evidence See above under human health. ...cultural heritage Strong evidence See above under human health. Measures have been... ...identified Strong evidence Italy has reported a total of 8 346 measures across all UoMs. These measures cover all four aspects - Prevention, Protection, Preparedness, Recovery and Review - as well as the category of "other measures". ...prioritised Strong evidence Italy has reported the priorities for about 90 % of the measures. Information on the approach for prioritisation was provided for all five FRMPs assessed. Four of the five FRMPs assessed refer to the use of a multicriteria approach for prioritisation. Three of these FRMPs - for Sangro (ITI023), Central Apennines (ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) - indicate that the prioritisation of measures was carried out following an approach indicated by ISPRA, the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research. The fourth FRMP, for the Eastern Alps (ITA), refers to the adaptation of an Austrian multicriteria system: this method includes among its four main criteria, compatibility with the objectives of the WFD. The reporting sheet for Sardinia (ITR201) states that priority is given to preliminary measures such as mapping and information actions that support other measures; measures that support planning, regulations and civil protection; and measures for emergency and recovery preparations. Relevant aspects of Article 7 have been taken into account such as... ...costs & benefits Some evidence Costs and benefits were taken into account in at least three of the five FRMPs assessed, though information provided on the approaches is sometimes limited. One of the five FRMPs assessed - for Sardinia (ITR201) - indicates that a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of non-structural measures was carried out, but further details are not available. For the Eastern Alps (ITA) FRMP, economic analysis is one of the four criteria used for prioritisation, though further details on the approach are not provided. The FRMP for the Puglia Region and the Ofanto Interregional Basin (ITR161I020) provides further detail on costs and benefits, including an overview of the costs of measures to be financed by the Puglia Region and presents estimates of the costs of floods for three sectors. ...flood extent Some evidence Italy's reporting sheets state that flood extent was identified in the Piani di Assetto Idrogeologico (Plans for Hydrogeological Arrangements, PAIs), which pre-date the Floods Directive and were used instead of the PFRA stage in Italy (as per Art. 13(1)(b) of the Directive). Flood extent was further assessed in the FHRM stage. While the FRMPs assessed and Italy’s reporting sheets highlight that the plans were developed on the basis of the FHRMs, details were not found on how flood extent was used to prepare the FRMPs themselves. ...flood conveyance Some evidence The reporting sheets for the five FRMPs assessed indicate that conveyance routes were studied in the preparation of the FHRMs, which in turn were used to prepare the FRMPs; however, details were not found however on how this influenced the FRMPs. ...water retention Strong evidence The reporting sheet for the Po UoM, Italy's largest UoM, has among its five objectives providing greater room for the river. In addition, four of the five FRMPs assessed refer to the role of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRMs) among their measures (the exception being the FRMP for Sardinia, ITR201), and all five contain NWRMs in their list of measures. Examples include measures to restore natural areas where flood waters can expand and to re-naturalise river courses. ...environmental objectives of the WFD Strong evidence Four of the five FRMPs assessed - those for the Eastern Alps (ITA), Central Apennines (ITE), Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) and Sardinia (ITR201) - cite the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD. For Sardinia, moreover, the FRMP’s specific objectives call for the mitigation of negative impacts on water bodies as per the WFD and for safeguarding of protected areas designated under the WFD. References to WFD objectives were not found in the other FRMP assessed - Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131) - though they are mentioned in the reporting sheets for this and indeed all five UoMs. ...spatial planning/land use Strong evidence All five FRMPs assessed contain measures to address land use, including actions to address flood risks in urban plans and initiatives to relocate activities away from flood risk areas; however, few details on the actions to be taken are provided. ...nature conservation Some evidence Three of the five FRMPs assessed - those for the Eastern Alps (ITA), Central Apennines (ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) - included measures for nature conservation, such as the development of protocols for environmental protection and analysis for the impact of structural measures on the environment. ...navigation/port infrastructure Some evidence Little information was found in the five FRMPs assessed: the FRMP for the Eastern Alps (ITA) refers briefly to the completion of an inland navigation canal and its possible use as a floodway; the FRMP for Puglia and Ofanto (ITR161I020) mentions port infrastructure among the factors considered in the plan. ...likely impact of climate change Some evidence Italy's reporting sheets for all 47 UoMs state that climate change will be addressed in the updates of the FRMPs (i.e. in the second cycle), taking into account Italy’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy - the Strategy was approved by the Ministry of Environment in June 2015. One FRMP, for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), refers to an analysis of climate impacts in on sub-basin and the plan includes a measure to evaluate the effects of climate changes on floods. Coordination with other countries ensured in the RBD/UoM Strong evidence The FRMP for the Eastern Alps (ITA RBD) reports ongoing coordination on flood risk management with Slovenian authorities for the shared Isonzo/Soca basin (UoM ITN004). The reporting sheet for the Po (ITN008) reports that coordination with French and Swiss authorities took place during the preparation of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for this UoM plan. Coordination ensured with WFD Some evidence The five FRMPs assessed provide different levels of information regarding coordination with the second River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs), with some providing examples of good practice such as assessing interactions of FRMP measures with the relevant RBMP. For example, the Eastern Alps (ITA) FRMP identifies measures that provide synergies with the RBMP, those that are ‘win-win’ for both plans and those that can lead to possible conflicts between the two plans. The FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020 UoM) indicates that certain FRMP measures (e.g. for the re-naturalisation of rivers) will contribute to achieving good status of water bodies; moreover, the monitoring of the implementation of measures will consider WFD objectives. And as noted above, the FRMP for Sardinia, ITR201, includes objectives on water body status and protected areas as per the WFD. The reporting sheet for Sardinia states that coordination between FRMP and RBMP objectives was sought in the identification of FRMP measures and also via the NWRMs. While the FRMP for Abruzzo/Sangro, ITI023 and ITR131) does not mention WFD objectives or other elements of coordination with the Directive, the reporting sheets for these UoMs state coordination included sharing of the knowledge base as well as the definition of measures; moreover, the authority for the ITE RBD, of which the UoMs are part, played a coordinating role to ensure coherence between FRMPs and the RBMP for the river basin district. The overall FRMP for the Central Apennines (ITE) notes that several types of measures will contribute to WFD objectives, including those providing room for the river. The prioritisation of measures includes their effect on the status of water bodies. Moreover, Italy has reported win-win measures for the FD and WFD in all 47 UoMs. Active involvement of interested parties Some evidence All five FRMPs assessed refer to the active involvement of stakeholders via public meetings, though the level of information provided varies. Three of these five FRMPs - those for the Eastern Alps (ITA), Central Apennines (ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) - identify stakeholders that were actively involved, including both private groups such as businesses and NGOs, as well as public bodies, such as civil protection authorities. Good Practices

The assessment identified the following good practices in the Italian FRMPs assessed. Table 3 Good practices in the Italian FRMPs Topic area Good practices identified Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk. Across all but two of Italy's 47 UoMs, a coordinated approach to objectives can be seen: there are four common themes (protection of human health, economic activity, environment and culture heritage) under which each FRMP then presents its objectives. In at least one FRMP (ITA, Eastern Alps), the objectives were discussed with stakeholders. Planning/implementing of measures and their prioritization for the achievement of objectives. Four of the five FRMPs assessed have prioritised their measures using multicriteria analysis (three using an Italian national system and the fourth using a system adapted from Austria). Four of the five FRMPs assessed identify indicators to monitor the implementation of measures, two identifying indicators for measures and two for the FRMP as a whole. One FRMP assessed – for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) – identifies a baseline value for each indicator. Public consultation. For ITA (Eastern Alps), a series of about 50 meetings for the public and stakeholders was held across the RBD territory and throughout the preparation period of the FRMP. The themes of the meetings were linked to the phases of development of the FRMP. A final set of meetings described the results of the consultation and active involvement process and presented an overview of how contributions had been addressed in the final version of the plan. Key materials from the meetings - agendas and presentations - are posted on the ITA web site. For ITE (Central Apennines) as well, meetings were held across the RBD territory, and agendas and meeting materials are published online. Flood risk governance. The FRMP for ITA describes the mechanism for coordination among government bodies used for the preparation of the FRMP: a working group that brought together national ministries and other bodies, sub-basin authorities, regional and autonomous province governments and irrigation bodies met 20 times over the course of 2015. Two of the FRMP assessed - for ITE Central Apennines and Sardinia (ITR201) - mention that a participative mechanism, river contracts, will be used in the implementation of the FRMPs at local level. International issues in flood risk management. In the Isonzo/Soca basin, shared between Italy (part of the Eastern Alps RBD (ITA) and within the RBD, the Isonzo UoM, ITN004) and Slovenia (the Adriatic UoM, SI_RBD_2), Italy and Slovenia have coordinated measures for alert systems and have agreed to pursue common Interreg projects for flood management. According to the FRMP, meetings of the joint commission between Italy and Slovenia will also monitor coordinated measures. Areas for further development The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the Italian FRMPs assessed. Table 4 Areas for further development in the Italian FRMPs Topic area Areas identified for further development Integration of previously reported information in the FRMPs. The five FRMPs assessed (as well as Italy's reporting sheets) state that the Plans are based on the prior steps, in particular the FHRMs. The FRMPs assessed do not, however, explain in detail how the FHRMs were used to prepare the FRMPs. While Italy and Slovenia have had ongoing exchanges of information and coordination, neither the FRMP for ITA (Eastern Alps) nor Italy’s reporting sheet for the Isonzo UoM (ITN004) specifies whether the identification of areas at risk of flooding or the preparation of FHRMs was carried out in coordination with Slovenia in the shared Isonzo/Soča catchment. Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk. The objectives set out in Italy's FRMPs are not specific and measurable: they do not include quantitative targets, nor specific locations. Planning/implementation of measures and their prioritization for the achievement of objectives. Although four of the five FRMPs assessed identify monitoring indicators, the five FRMPs do not provide a detailed description of how monitoring of the implementation of measures will be carried out, though the plans as well as Italy’s reporting sheets refer to a national database, ReNDiS, used to track implementation of measures financed by the national Ministry of Environment. Funding sources for measures are defined at a high level. Consideration of climate change in the FRMPs assessed. The five FRMPs assessed contain relatively limited information on climate change impacts. Based on Italy's reporting sheets, this appears to be the case for most of Italy’s FRMPs. The objectives of the FRMPs assessed do not refer to addressing climate change impacts and few measures related to climate change were identified. There is no reference in the FRMPs assessed to the national climate change adaptation strategy. Use of CBA in the FRMPs assessed. Only two of the five FRMPs assessed – Sardinia, ITR201 and Puglia and Ofanto, ITR161I020 – refer to the use of CBA. On the basis of the information found, it appears that Italy has not extensively or consistently used cost-benefit analyses in the preparation of its FRMPs. Public consultation. The information provided on the consultation process varies across the five FRMPs assessed: for several FRMPs, limited information is provided in the plans themselves (or in other sources, such as the UoM authority web sites) on the approach to consultation or its effects. Flood risk governance. Italy has prepared a great number of FRMPs, the system is elaborate and the relationships between different plans is not always clear: FRMPs are prepared at different levels, including RBD, UoM, province and regional levels. Little information is provided in the FRMPs assessed - other than that for ITA - on coordination mechanisms at national level or among government bodies at different levels within the territory covered by the FRMP. For example, neither the FRMP for Abruzzo and Sangro UoMs (ITI023 and ITR131) nor that for the Central Apennines RBD (ITE) describe coordination for the preparation of these two plans, even though the RBD includes the territory of the two UoMs. Recommendations Based on the reported information and the FRMP assessed, the following recommendations are made to enhance flood risk management (not listed in any particular order): ·Italy's FRMPs should clearly describe how the PFRA stage of the flood risk management cycle (even if it predates the Floods Directive) was used to prepare the FHRMs under the FD, and how the FHRMs were used to prepare the FRMPs. ·To be able to assess progress, Italy's FRMPs should set specific and measurable objectives to the extent possible. How objectives and measures relate to each other should be considered. ·Italy's FRMPs should reinforce climate change considerations in its FRMPs. Coordination with the national climate change adaptation strategy should be elaborated in the FRMPs. ·The FRMPs should consistently explain how monitoring of measures will be carried out. ·Where possible, Italy should expand the use of CBA in the selection and prioritisation of measures. Funding sources for measures should be specified in more detail. ·The FRMPs should consistently provide information on the process for public participation and active involvement of stakeholders or indicate where this information is available. ·On governance: (1) The merits of common national approaches should be considered, inter alia for methods not found in the first cycle of FRMPs, such as CBA and identifying and addressing climate change impacts. (2) Each RBD should ensure that cooperation mechanisms are established among relevant national and RBD bodies, and such coordination mechanisms should be described in the FRMPs.



1.Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1Reporting of the FRMPs

The exact number of FRMPs prepared in Italy is unclear from Italy’s reporting as the plans prepared were not uploaded to WISE directly. For nearly all UoMs, a link is provided to a plan (see Annex A1 for an overview of Italy’s reporting) A review of all the UoM reporting sheets moreover has shown that Italy did not make use of Article 13.3 of the Floods Directive, which allowed Member States to make use of previous flood risk management plans for the 1st cycle (provided their content is equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive). Concerning the geographic coverage of the FRMPs, there nonetheless is a mix of approaches used in Italy. Some FRMPs are prepared at UoM level, some at sub-UoM level, some at RBD level (covering more than one UoM) and in some RBDs, there are both RBD and lower-level plans. More specifically: ·in at least two RBDs, there is an overall FRMP that covers all UoMs within its territory: ITA, Eastern Alps and ITB, Po. ·Another RBD does not have an overall FRMP, and instead FRMPs are prepared at UoM level: ITC, Northern Apennines. ·A fourth RBD has an overall FRMP as well as separate FRMPs that cover the smaller UoMs: ITE, Central Apennines. ·For ITF (Southern Apennines), an overall FRMP has been developed for the RBD; plans are also developed at regional level. ·Some UoMs correspond to the RBDs: ITN008, Po (ITB for the WFD), Italy’s largest UoM and RBD, covering several regions and sub-basins; and ITR191, Sicily, and ITR201, Sardinia (corresponding to ITG and ITH, respectively) – each covering a single island region; ITSNP01, Serchio, a small “pilot” RBD (ITD) within the Tuscany Region. For each of these four UoMs/RBDs, a single FRMP was prepared. 1.2Assessment of the FRMPs In order to cover the different FRMP approaches used in Italy, a selection of five FRMPs was assessed: ·ITA Eastern Alps RBD, covering all UoMs within this RBD. Nonetheless, the FRMP also includes as annexes two regional FRMPs, one each for the autonomous provinces of Trent and of Bolzano/Bozen: information in these annexed FRMPs is considered, where it provides additional information. Within the RBD’s FRMP the assessment considers transboundary issues in particular for the Isonzo UoM (ITN004). ·ITE Central Apennines RBD: here too, the FRMP covers an entire RBD and multiple UoMs within it. ·However, there are separate FRMPs for the UoMs within the ITE RBD, and the assessment included the single FRMP that covers both the Sangro interregional basin (ITI023) and Abruzzo Region (ITR131) UoMs. ·The FRMP for the Puglia Region and the Ofanto River interregional basin (ITR161I020): this FRMP covers a UoM within the ITF, Southern Apennines, RBD. ·The FRMP for the Sardinia Region (ITR201): this FRMP covers a UoM that also matches the RBD territory and the regional territory of this island region. ITR201 was also covered in the FHRM assessment and areas for further development identified then in its FHRMs are revisited in this assessment. The assessment reviewed the FRMPs, their annexes and background documents where relevant, and also Italy’s reporting sheets. It should be noted that Italy provided reporting sheets for each UoM, while some of the FRMPs were prepared at the level of RBD; moreover, one FRMP assessed (Sangro and Abruzzo) covers two UoMs. Consequently, the reporting sheets do not always match the FRMPs.

2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment Italy applied Article 13.1(b) of the Floods Directive, under which it was decided not to undertake the PFRA, as flood hazard maps, flood risk maps and flood risk management plans had been prepared before December 2010 for all areas of potential significant flood risk. All regions in Italy were required to prepare a “Piano di Assetto Idrogeologico” (Plan of Hydrogeological Status, or PAI) under the national legislation (D.Lgs. 152/2006 art. 67, though the original requirement was set out in D.L 180/1998). All five FRMPs assessed cite these previous plans and indicate that they identified areas at risk of flooding. The FRMPs do not, however, describe the results of preliminary flood risk assessment in those plans in any detail.

In four of the five FRMPs assessed, summary maps which indicate areas of potential flood risks were found within the FRMP report or its annexes: ·In the plan for the Eastern Alps (ITA) a summary map shows areas identified, however, a list and designation of areas was not found in the plan. This map includes the RBD's shared catchments with Slovenia, Austria and Switzerland but it does not appear to show any shared APSFRs (and none are specified in the plan). ·The FRMP for the Central Apennines (ITE) presents a summary map of APSFRs for the largest catchment of the RBD, the Tiber. Summary maps for other basins in ITE were not found . ·The FRMP for the Sangro and Abruzzo (ITR131 and ITI023) provides an overview map of risk areas. ·The FRMP for Puglia and Ofanto (ITR161I020) provides a list of APSFRs in an annex to the main report; separate annexes provide maps of the areas. ·The FRMP for Sardinia does not contain summary maps but refers to a separate file where these can be found . For all of the FRMPs assessed, more detailed maps – flood risk and hazard maps (FHRMs) that show the APSFRs – are available online for download (the links are provided below on page 18). For two of the FRMPs assessed - Sardinia (ITR201) and Puglia and Ofanto (ITR161I020) - a summary map of APSFRs is also available for download. Links to maps of the APSFRs have been provided in some but not all of the FRMPs assessed: ·Two of the five FRMPs (ITA and ITE) assessed provide links specifically to maps that show the APSFRs. ·The FRMP for ITA (Eastern Alps) provides a link to the main web page of the authority for the RBD where maps can be downloaded from a page with links to detailed maps for the RBD territory, showing areas at risk of flood with depths under three scenarios (30, 100 and 300 year floods). ·The FRMP for ITE (Central Apennines) provides links to the authorities for each UoM within the RBD: for example, the pages for the Tiber Basin provide flood hazard and flood risk maps, which indicate APSFRs. ·The FRMP for Sangro and Abruzzo, ITR131 and ITI023, provides a link to the authority web page, where maps can be downloaded. ·The FRMP for Puglia and Ofanto, ITR161I020, notes that the authority’s web site contains an online GIS showing the APSFRs, but does not provide a direct link to this mapping application. ·The FRMP for Sardinia, ITR201, indicates that these maps are available online but does not provide a direct link . Consequently, for all five plans assessed, the web sites for the FRMPs provide separate FHRMs for download that show APSFRs, though not all FRMPs assessed provide either summary maps or direct links. In the five FRMPs assessed, no references were found to indicate that conveyance routes were taken into account in the PFRA stage. The reporting sheets related to these UoMs, however, state that conveyance routes were studied in the preparation of the flood hazard and flood risk maps. In addition, the report on FHRMs annexed to the FRMP for Sardinia (ITR201) states that conveyance routes were considered in a prior plan, the Piano stralcio delle fasce fluviali (Summary plan for fluvial areas), approved in 2015, but it is not clear how this influenced the FHRMs . 2.1.1Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs One of the five FRMPs assessed - ITA, Eastern Alps - shares catchments with other Member States – Slovenia and Austria – and with a third country, Switzerland. The FRMP states that the shared catchments with Austria and Switzerland are minor and do not involve flood risk issues; consequently, there have not been coordination activities. For Slovenia, flood issues in the shared catchment of the Isonzo/Soca are mentioned in the FRMP but it is not specified that the identification of flood risk areas was coordinated; Italy's reporting sheet for the Isonzo (ITN004) also discusses cooperation with Slovenia but does not specify if the identification of flood risk areas was coordinated . 2.1.2Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHR maps Italy applied Article 13.1(b) of the Floods Directive and as a result did not undertake PFRAs under the FD. Instead, all regions in Italy were required to prepare a PAI as described above. All five FRMPs assessed cite the PAIs as the starting point for the preparation of the FHRMs. The FRMP for the Eastern Alps (ITA) presents the process, which included the analysis of further historical flood data as well as additional modelling, in an annex. In Sardinia, a separate volume describes the process: in this UoM, the FHRMs used both the PAI as well as a later plan on river floodplains, which studied fluvial flood risks in greater depth. The FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) notes that the flood risk areas identified in the PAI provided the starting point for the FHRMs, which integrated further studies.

The PFRAs appear not to have considered climate change. For example, the report on FHRMs for Sardinia (ITR201), annexed to the FRMP, states that currently available climate scenarios do not provide hydrological data with sufficient detail for incorporation in the FHRMs: this will be addressed by CMCC, the Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Climate Change, for the second cycle of FRMPs. One other FRMP assessed, for Puglia/Ofanto, includes a measure to assess climate impacts (see section 5). 2.2Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs Two of the five FRMPs assessed include summary flood risk and flood hazard maps within the plans: the FRMPs for the Central Apennines (ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020). As noted above, FHRMs are provided as annexes for all five plans. The FRMPs for Eastern Alps (ITA), Sangro and Abruzzo (ITI023 and ITR131) and Central Apennines (ITE) specify that the FHRMs took in account the fluvial floods. None of the five indicate that pluvial floods were addressed in the FHRMs. Of the five FRMPs, only the FRMPs for the Eastern Alps and Puglia/Ofanto refer to seawater floods. None of the five FRMPs make a reference to the inclusion of groundwater floods, floods from artificial water bearing structures, floods with no specific source or the combined effects of more than one source of flooding. The assessment of Italy’s FHRMs also found variations across the UoMs and that not all flood sources were addressed. The FHRM assessment reviewed seven UoMs and found that all addressed fluvial floods, but only two explicitly addressed pluvial floods and only three addressed seawater floods. No information was found on other sources of flooding, . As Italy did not report under the PFRA step, a complete picture of flood sources in Italy is not available. Links to the flood hazard and flood risk maps have been provided in some but not all FRMPs assessed. Specifically: The FRMP for ITA (Eastern Alps) provides a link to the main web page of the authority for the RBD - www.alpiorientali.it - stating that maps can be downloaded at this site. The web site has a page with links to detailed maps for the RBD territory. The FRMP for ITE (Central Apennines) provides links to the authorities for each UoM within the RBD: for example, for the Tiber Basin - http://www.abtevere.it/node/1074 - the pages provide flood hazard and flood risk maps. For the other FRMPs assessed, though links were not found in the FRMPs, the FHRMs are nonetheless technical annexes to the FRMPs and are available online: ·For Sardinia (ITR201), as PDFs: http://www.regione.sardegna.it/j/v/2420?s=1&v=9&c=14013&es=6603&na=1&n=10&tb=14006&esp=1 ·For Puglia and Ofanto (ITR161I020), both as PDFs and on a web GIS viewer: http://www.adb.puglia.it/public/page.php?96 ·For Abruzzo and Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131), as PDFs: http://autoritabacini.regione.abruzzo.it/index.php/carta-della-pericolosita-psda

2.2.1Maps for shared flood risk areas One of the five FRMPs assessed, ITA, shares catchments with neighbouring countries: Austria, Slovenia and Switzerland. The FRMP provides an overview of cooperation on flood issues with Slovenia (pp. 78-9) but does not specify that there are shared flood risk areas, nor if mapping has been coordinated; no information was found either in Italy's reporting sheet for the shared Isonzo UoM (ITN004). The FRMP states that the shared catchments with Austria and Switzerland are minor and do not involve flood risk issues; consequently, there have not been coordination activities. 2.2.2Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps

The FRMPs (as well as Italy's reporting sheets) state that the plans are based on the prior steps, in particular the FHRMs. Nonetheless, neither the FHRMs nor the reporting sheets explain in detail how the FHRMs were used to develop the plans or their priorities, objectives or measures. An annex on non-structural measures to Sardinia’s FRMP includes a list of key elements exposed to flood risk (such as cultural heritage sites and critical infrastructure) and on this basis develops a brief analysis of key areas for further assessment, planning and other initiatives. The reporting sheets for the five UoMs provide an overview of the analytical steps undertaken for the development of the FHRMs, and they indicate that the FHRMs were used to identify objectives and measures. In some cases, specific examples are provided: the summary for ITN004 (Isonzo) indicates that the maps were used to identify potential pollution sources and thus to develop measures to address potential pollution in the event of flooding. 2.3Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas The assessment looked for information on changes in the identification of APSFRs since December 2011, or in the FHRMs since December 2013, indicated in the FRMP. As noted above, Italy applied Art. 13.1(b) and identified flood risk areas in previous plans. In the FRMP for Puglia and Ofanto (ITR161I020), it is indicated that the flood maps prepared in 2013 included new areas at risk of flooding not identified in the early PAI. No information was found in the other four FRMPs assessed or in the reporting sheets for these FRMPs to indicate that changes were made to the APSFRs since 2011 or to the FHRMs since December 2013. 2.4Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps The FHRM assessment identified the following areas for further development for Italy: ·International UoMs, Art. 6(2): Italy did not report information on information exchange for the production of maps between Member States sharing international UoMs and how it was ensured that coherent maps were produced between the relevant Member States. ·Water depth/level, Art. 6(4)(b): some UoMs (e.g. ITR091, ITR121, ITR201, ITN010) did not report the water depth/level in the FHRMs, and the reasons for the non-inclusion of this element were not provided. ·Inhabitants affected Art. 6(5)(a): some UoMs (e.g. ITR091 and ITR201) did not report the number of inhabitants affected, and the reasons for the non-inclusion of these elements were not provided. ·Type of economic activity Art. 6(5)(b): none of the UoMs reviewed showed the type of economic activities in their FHRMs, and the reasons for the non-inclusion of these elements were not provided. ·Industrial installations and WFD areas Art. 6(5)(c): according to Article 6(5)(c), Member States should report installations under the IPPC Directive (96/61/EC) and potentially affected protected areas identified in annex IV (i) (iii) and (v) to the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Some UoMs assessed (e.g. ITR091 and ITR201) did not report the location of these installations. ·Italy did not report adverse consequences on the environment in the mapping of the risk from low probability floods, and the reasons for the non-inclusion of these elements were not provided. ·Flood Sources: not all sources of flood were identified in the FHRMs. Although from the methodology for hazard maps it seems that fluvial and pluvial floods have been considered together, this is not explicitly explained, nor graphically represented on the maps. Coastal floods were explicitly identified only in few UoMs, but there is less detail available than for the fluvial floods. It was not clear which sources had been considered, nor how. ·Application of Art. 6(6): it is not clear in which areas within UoMs Article 6(6) was applied (preparation of flood hazard maps for coastal areas only for extreme event scenarios). In many of the areas for further development identified, maps for ITR201 (Sardinia) were cited. Consequently, the analysis has focused where appropriate on this UoM: ·On information exchange between Member States for the production of maps, one of the FRMPs assessed - ITA, Eastern Alps - includes shared catchments with Austria and Slovenia (as well as a non-EU MS, Switzerland). The FRMP for ITA indicates that Italy and Slovenia collaborated on studies and the analysis of critical issues for the international Isonzo/Soca basin (UoM ITN004 in Italy), as well as measures, but the FRMP does not provide any information regarding exchanges for the production of maps. ·Regarding information on water depth/level in the FHRMs, while this was found for maps linked to some FRMPs (e.g. ITA), water depth/level was not found in maps for ITR091, ITR121, ITR201 or ITN010. It appears that this area for further development still needs to be addressed in full. ·For ITR201, maps prepared for each municipality indicate the number of inhabitants in flood risk areas and the number at risk under different flood scenarios. For Sardinia at least, this area for further development has been addressed. ·The report on FHRMs in ITR201 indicates that industrial and commercial areas are identified on the maps. Consequently, this area for further development has been at least partially addressed.

·The report on FHRMs in ITR201 indicates that IPPC installations are identified in the maps, and a series of separate online documents provides maps for such installations. The maps for the Puglia/Ofanto UoM also identify industrial installations, distinguishing those presenting significant environmental risks, including IPPC installations, from others. Consequently, this area for further development has been at least partially addressed. ·With regard to low-probability floods, the FHRM report for ITR201 cites national legislation (D.Lgs 49/2010) that calls for three scenarios, including low-probability floods (those occurring once every 200 to 500 years). The annexes to the FRMP for ITR201 include maps of Natura 2000 sites, showing how they are affected under different flood scenarios - consequently, in at least one UoM, this area for further development has been addressed. In contrast, in the FHRMs for the Central Apennines RBD (ITE), IPPC installations are indicated but environmental areas such as Natura 2000 sites are not. ·Based on the five FRMP assessed and the maps examined, the FHRMs still present fluvial and pluvial floods together. With regard to coastal floods, four FRMPs assessed refer to coastal flooding: ITR201 (Sardinia), ITA (Eastern Alps), ITE (Central Apennines) and Puglia and Ofanto (ITR161I020). For ITR201, detailed maps of risks and hazards from seawater flooding are annexed to the FRMP. No reference to coastal flooding was found, however, in the FRMP for Abruzzo/Sangro. On the basis of the information gathered, it is not clear if this area for further development was addressed. ·For ITR201, the flood hazard maps for coastal areas cover a range of scenarios, including 2-year and 20-year flood events (as well as 100-year events). However, based on the reporting sheets and the FRMPs, it is not possible to identify which of Italy’s UoMs have applied Art. 6(6) . 2.5Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information The following areas for further development are identified: ·The five FRMPs assessed (as well as Italy’s reporting sheets) state that the plans are based on the prior steps, in particular the FHRMs. The FRMPs assessed do not, however, explain in detail how the FHRMs were used to prepare the FRMPs. ·While Italy and Slovenia have had ongoing exchanges of information and coordination, neither the FRMP for ITA (Eastern Alps) nor Italy’s reporting sheet for the Isonzo UoM (ITN004) specifies whether the identification of areas at risk of flooding or the preparation of FHRMs was carried out in coordination with Slovenia in the shared Isonzo/Soča catchment.

3. Setting of Objectives 3.1Focus of objectives All five FRMPs assessed group their objectives around four key themes from the Floods Directive: human health, cultural heritage, environment and economic activities. The FRMP for the Eastern Alps (ITA), for example, specifies that its four objectives are the reduction of adverse consequences to each of these four themes. The FRMPs for Abruzzo and Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131) and Sardinia (ITR201) also refer to the “reduction of adverse consequences”. Other FRMPs assessed refer instead to the “reduction of risk”: this is the case for the plans for the Central Apennines (ITE), Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020). For each theme, the FRMPs identify specific objectives that are broadly similar but with some variation from one plan to another (see Annex A2 for the objectives in each of the FRMPs assessed). For example, under human health, the FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto has three specific objectives to reduce risk for: human health, human life, and for key structures that provide services for domestic and other users – hospitals, water supply and electricity supply. The FRMP for the Eastern Alps has two specific objectives: protection of health from both direct impacts and indirect impacts that could arise from pollution of the interruption of services such as water; protection of communities from adverse consequences, such as impacts on local governance, emergency interventions, schools and health and social services. A review of the reporting sheets of all the 47 UoMs shows that 44 follow this approach for objectives. Italy’s largest UoM, the Po, instead uses a different approach. In addition, two UoMs (ITR081, Emilia-Romagna Region, and ITI01319, Conca-Marecchia, which lies in part in Emilia-Romagna) a third approach is used: 29 objectives are listed; they are not grouped in larger categories and appear closely related to measures. For all UoMs, the objectives address human health, cultural heritage, environment and economic activities. The five FRMPs assessed include objectives to reduce the adverse consequences of floods. In addition, the text discussing objectives in the FRMP for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITR131 and ITI023) refers to the reduction of the likelihood of flood risk: declaring that “the mitigation of risks have to be developed through a set of provisions which aim to reduce the likelihood and impact of floods”. The FRMPs also indicate that their measures were selected to achieve the objectives. The measures cover prevention, preparedness, protection and recovery; all the FRMPs indicate that prevention is a priority and measures seek to improve knowledge of the areas at risk of flooding and increase efforts to reduce vulnerability. Furthermore, in the FRMPs the objectives are qualified with different level of priorities and the “protection for the human health” is recognized as the most important one. These objectives apply to the five FRMPs assessed. Consequently, in the FRMPs assessed: ·The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods. ·The objectives in some FRMPs explicitly aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding. 3.2Specific and measurable objectives

For the five FRMPs assessed, the objectives themselves do not include quantitative targets, nor specific locations. They do not specify measures or a time frame for their achievement. Nonetheless, as noted above, the choice of measures was linked to the objectives (and for the measures, specific locations are identified – see section 4). 3.3Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods As indicated above, the objectives of all the plans are structured around the four themes of human health, cultural heritage, environment and economic activity. Three of the five FRMPs refer direct to the reduction of adverse consequences; the other two refer to the reduction of flood risk, which includes both adverse consequences as well as the reduction of the likelihood of flooding. All the FRMPs then contain specific objectives to reduce adverse consequences, such as: protection of human health from the pollution or interruption of water supplies, protection from the interruption or adverse consequences on essential public services (like hospitals, schools, local authorities), protection from negative damages and impact on the environment and from pollution of water sources, protection of natural parks and landscape, protection of agriculture, other economic activities and properties. 3.4Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding The objectives of two of the five FRMPs assessed refer to the reduction of risk, which includes both adverse consequences as well as the reduction of the likelihood of flooding . Reduction of the likelihood of flooding is moreover directly addressed by measures. In the FRMP for Sangro and Abruzzo UoM (ITI023 and ITR131), for example, the text refers to reduction in the likelihood of flooding; however, this appears to be a reference to the measures and is not listed in the objectives themselves. Indeed, reduction in the likelihood of flooding is among the criteria for prioritising measures in Italy (see section 4). 3.5Process for setting the objectives None of the FRMPs specify that objectives were coordinated at either national or regional level. Nonetheless, it appears that the objectives were coordinated at national level, as the five FRMPs assessed - and all but two of the UoM reporting sheets - present their objectives grouped around the four themes taken from the Directive. Moreover, it is expected that objectives were coordinated at regional level, as all of the regions are identified amongst the competent authorities for the FRMPs. The reporting sheets moreover state that specific objectives were set on the basis of the FHRMs and their identification of specific territorial conditions and the flood risks and hazards identified in each UoM. Only one of the five FRMPs assessed clearly indicates that objectives were discussed with stakeholders: For Eastern Alps (ITA), the objectives were discussed during the public consultation with stakeholders. 3.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives Good practices with respect to the formulation of objectives are the following: ·Across all but two of Italy’s 47 UoMs, a coordinated approach to objectives can be seen: they are grouped around the four themes from the Floods Directive – protection of human health, cultural heritage, environment and economic activities – under which each FRMP then sets its objectives. ·In at least one FRMP (ITA, Eastern Alps), the objectives were discussed with stakeholders. Areas for further development include: ·The objectives set out in Italy’s FRMPs are not specific and measurable: they do not include quantitative targets, nor specific locations.



4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives Across all its UoMs, Italy reported 1 605 individual measures and 6 741 aggregated measures for a total of 8 346 measures (the FRMPs do not, however, explain how individual and aggregated measures are defined). The average number of measures per UoM is 241. Some of the national measures are assigned to more than one measure type. To compare the number of measures by type, a total count is used that includes each time a measure is allocated to a measure type (this implies double-counting): this raises the total to 10 064 measures.

Italy reported measures across all four aspects – prevention, protection, preparedness, recovery and review – as well for the category of “other” and nearly all measure types. Italy reported a total of 3 502 prevention measures (35 % of all measures), 4 566 total protection measures (45%), 1 572 preparedness measures (16 %), 408 recovery and review measures (4 %) and 16 “other” measures (less than 1 % of all measures). Please see Annex A for supplementary tables and charts on measures for this and subsequent questions in this section. 4.1Cost of measures Table 5 Overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMPs FRMP Estimated overall budget of planned measure/s (2015-2021) in EUR ITA 1 380 m ITR201 1 617 m * ITI023 and ITR131 - ITE - ITR161I020 783.5 m Note: for Sardinia (ITR201), the costs refer to structural measures. Cost information about the measures is provided in three of the five FRMPs assessed, namely in Eastern Alps (ITA), Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) and Sardinia (ITR201). The Eastern Alps (ITA) FRMP provides an estimated overall budget of planned measures. This FRMP also breaks down the budget by UoM within the RBD and by measure aspect. A second FRMP, Sardinia (ITR201), provides the cost of each structural measure and the total cost for all structural measures: estimated at €1 617 m. Information about the costs of non-structural measures is not available. The Puglia/Ofanto FRMP (ITR161I020) indicates a total cost of €783.5 m, the lion’s share of which (754 m) is for measures in the territory of the Puglia Region, which accounts for most of the UoM territory; smaller amounts are for measures in the Basilicata Region (€25 m) and Campania Region (€4.5 m). The FRMP also indicates the cost by priority of measure, with the bulk for the highest priority measures: €107 m for critical priority measures (about 14 % of the total); and €460 m for very high priority measures (59 %). For the Central Apennines (ITE), some information is found in the lists of measures for sub-basins; however, no information on costs of measures was found for the largest sub-basin of this RBD, the Tiber; moreover, no information on costs was found in the list of measures for the Abruzzo/Sangro FRMP (ITI023 and ITR131). Information provided in the reporting sheets indicates that Italy reported the costs for 450 measures spread over three UoMs (ITR161I020, ITR191, ITSNP01). The reported costs ranged from less than €1 m to over €20 m, the majority of the measures (around 51 %) with costs in the range €1-5 m (for details see Tables A5 and A6 in Annex A). 4.2Funding of measures The five FRMPs assessed provide some information on funding sources, though none provides a comprehensive overview. ·The FRMP for the Eastern Alps (ITA) provides two brief references to national and provincial funds. ·For the Puglia/Ofanto FRMP (ITR161I020), an overview of funding sources is not provided, but references are made to the use of national, regional and local budgets; EU funds in general and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in particular are also highlighted. ·For Sardinia (ITR201), the report on structural measures refers to national and regional budgetary sources. ·The FRMP for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131) mentions the use of regional and local budgets for some measures. ·The FRMP for the Central Apennines (ITE) refers to the use of national and regional budgets. Table 6 Funding of measures ITR161I020 ITA ITR201 ITI023, ITR131 ITE Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding Use of public budget (national level) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Use of public budget (regional level) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Use of public budget (local level) ✔ ✔ Private investment EU funds (generic) ✔ EU Structural funds EU Solidarity Fund EU Cohesion funds EU CAP funds ✔ International funds

Source: FRMPs 4.3Measurable and specific (including location) measures Only some of the FRMPs assessed include a clear and explicit description of the measures with regard to: ·What they are trying to achieve, ·How they are to be achieved, and ·By when they are expected to be achieved. The FRMPs assessed provide information on where measures are to be achieved. The measures indicate the level of location, in most cases this is the RBD/UoM, sub-basin or APSFR. Table 7 Location of measures ITA ITI023, ITR131 ITE ITR201 ITR161I020 International National RBD/UoM ✔ ✔ ✔ Sub-basin ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ APSFR or other specific risk area ✔ ✔ ✔ Water body level Municipalities, rivers and also specific points, such as bridges ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs The extent of information varies across the five FRMPs assessed. The list of measures in the FRMP for the Eastern Alps (ITA) includes a detailed classification of the intervention, including the timetable for the measure. For Sardinia (ITR201), the list of measures indicates the timetable. The list of measures for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131), in contrast, does not include a clear timetable, nor do the lists for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) and the Central Apennines (ITE). Four of the five FRMPs assessed – Eastern Alps (ITA), Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023, ITR131), Central Apennines (ITE) and Sardinia (ITR201) – list specific locations for their measures. This is not the case for the Puglia/Ofanto FRMP (ITR161I020), which groups measures in terms of sub-basins and does not list specific locations. 4.4Measures and objectives In the FRMPs assessed, it is not clear how measures will contribute to the achievement of objectives, nor clear by how much they will contribute. It is also not clear whether the objectives will be achieved when all measures are completed. This due in large part to the fact that the measures themselves are not specific or measurable (see section 3). 4.5Geographic coverage/scale of measures Italy has reported 2 282 different responses for the location of the measures across all its UoMs in the reporting sheets. A quantitative analysis is therefore unfeasible. The FRMPs for the Eastern Alps (ITA), Abruzzo/Sangro (ITR131 and ITI023) and Central Apennines (ITE) provide information about the specific location of measures, referring to the city, river, and even specific point (e.g. a bridge). Italy reported information about the geographic coverage of the impacts of measures for 1458 measures in eight UoMs (ITI01319, ITI021, ITN002, ITR051, ITR081, ITR111, ITR191 and ITSNP01) in the reporting sheets. However, the responses vary and aggregation of the data into a small number of categories is not feasible. No information was found in the five FRMPs assessed: for example, in the detailed list of measures for ITA (Eastern Alps), which follows the structure of the reporting questions, the column for geographic coverage is blank for all measures. 4.6Prioritisation of measures Italy reported the priority for 9 055 measures (90 % of the total 10 064 measures) as ten UoMs did not report any information regarding the category of priority (ITI017, ITI026, ITN001, ITN003, ITN004, ITN006, ITN007, ITN009, ITR051, ITR061): for these UoMs, Italy instead reported on the timetable for implementation (see below on the following page). Of the 9 055 measures for which priority is indicated: 807 measures are classified as critical (9% of the total); 5 249 measures are classified as very high priority (85%); 2 455 as high priority (27 %); 434 measures as moderate priority (4 %) and 110 as low priority (1 %). Among the measure aspects, over half of the critical priority measures are for prevention (10 % of prevention measures, the highest share amongst the four aspects, are listed as of critical priority). Two-thirds of prevention measures and three-quarters of recovery and review measures are listed as being of very high priority. Almost one-third of protection measures are listed as being of high priority (for further details see Tables A7 and A8 in Annex A).

When looking at the FRMPs assessed: ·Sardinia (ITR201) presents 12 critical measures out of 62 total (19 %), 23 very high priority measures (37 %) and 27 high priority measures (44 %), no moderate or low priorities were indicated. ·For the Sangro (ITI023), 34 measures out of 45 measures (76 %) are classified as very high priority and the remaining 11 as high priority; ·for the Abruzzo regional UoM (ITR131), there is one critical measure (2 %), 15 very high priority measures (25 %), 43 high priority measures (72 %), and one moderate priority measure. ·For Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), a total of 508 measures are indicated, of which 41 are critical (8 %), 382 very high priority (75 %), 81 high priority (16 %), 3 moderate (0.6 %) and one low priority (0.2 %). ·For the Isonzo (ITN004, part of ITA, the Eastern Alps RBD), no information was reported on the priorities of its measures. The ITA and ITE FRMPs both cover several UoMs – including the Isonzo (ITN004) for ITA and the Sangro (ITI023) and Abruzzo (ITR131) for ITE – and Italy’s reporting to WISE is at the UoM level, not the RBD level of these FRMPs. The FRMPs for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131), Central Apennines (ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) indicate that the prioritisation of measures was carried out following an approach indicated by ISPRA, the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (in 2014). This method uses a multicriteria approach. This method is based on the four themes of the objectives – reduction of social risks (including those for human health), risks to economic activities, cultural heritage and the environment – and then the individual objectives identified by the FRMP under each theme. For each objective, a value is given (for example, reduction of risk to transport infrastructure has different scores for railroads and national, regional and local roads). The values for each objective are summed to give the overall score for each measure. For the Eastern Alps (ITA), the FRMP refers to a different approach, also based on a multicriteria approach, but one prepared by the Austrian Environment Ministry, composed by four criteria, including short-term economic analysis. This method was tailored to the local conditions and needs in the UoM/RBD and was adopted by Regional and Provincial authorities. In the FRMP for Sardinia (ITR201), no information was found regarding the approach used for prioritisation of the measures, . Italy reported information on the timetable for those measures where the priority was not reported: consequently, only 1 009 measures (10 % of the 10 064 measures reported) across 10 of the 47 UoMs: ITI017, ITI026, ITN001, ITN003, ITN004, ITN006, ITN007, ITN009, ITR051, ITR061. For these 10 UoMs, 232 measures (23 % of the 1 009 measures) are to be implemented in 2016-18; 573 measures (57 %) in the period from 2016-21; and 165 measures (16 %) in the period 2019-21. Consequently, 96 % of the measures listed are to be implemented in the current FRMP cycle. The remaining 39 measures (4 % of the 1 009 measures) are to be implemented in the period 2022-27, i.e. in the next FRMP cycle (for further details see Tables A9 and A10 in Annex A). Among the five FRMPs assessed, a timetable is reported only for the Isonzo UoM (ITN004). In this UoM the vast majority of the measure (53 of the total 55 measures) will be implemented in the current FRMP cycle (2016-21) and only two measures in the next cycle. 4.7Authorities responsible for implementation of measures Italy provided information about the authorities responsible for the measures in its reporting sheets. In most cases, either the level of responsible authority or the name of the responsible authority was reported. On this basis, the level of responsible authority was compiled into six major categories (see tables A11 and A12 in Annex A): ·operators (mainly bodies managing transport and water infrastructure) are responsible for 615 measures (6 % of the total of 10 064 measures); ·municipalities for 1 689 measures (17 % of the total); ·provincial authorities for 333 measures (3 % of the total); ·regional authorities for 6 511 measures (65 %); ·national authorities for 85 measures (0.8 %); ·civil protection authorities for 27 measures (0.3 %); and ·other authorities for 804 measures (8 %).

For the five UoMs assessed, in Sardinia (ITR201) only the regional authorities are identified as responsible authorities: they implement all 62 measures reported. ·For the Isonzo (ITN004) in ITA, the majority of the measures are implemented by regional authorities (82 % of the total 55 measures), eight measures by national level authorities (15 %), one measures by a municipality (2 %), and one by another authority (2 %). ·For Sangro (ITI023), of the 45 measures reported, one is implemented by a municipality (2 %), 41 by regional authorities (91%) and three by other authorities (7 %) ·For Abruzzo (ITR131, reported separately from the Sangro UoM), regional authorities will implement the lion’s share of measures – 163 out of 167 (98 %) measures, a municipality will be responsible for one measure (less than 1%) and other entities for three measures (2 %). ·For Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), where 508 measures are reported: 11 measures are under the responsibility of operators (2 %), 281 of municipalities (55 %), 179 of regional authorities (35 %), three of provincial authorities (1 %) and 34 by others (7 %). As noted previously, the ITA and ITE FRMPs both cover several UoMs – including the Isonzo (ITN004) for ITA and the Sangro (ITI023) and Abruzzo (ITR131) for ITE – and measures for these RBDs are reported at UoM level. 4.8Progress of implementation of measures In its reporting sheets, Italy indicated that: ·6 489 of the 10 064 measures have not started (64 %), ·2 283 are in the phase of ongoing construction (23 %), ·918 are in ongoing progress (9 %), and ·379 are completed (4 %). Just over 80 % of the prevention measures (2 852 out of 3 502) have not been started. Just over 60 % of the protection measures (2 807 out of 4 566 measures) are not started, while 15 % (687 measures) are in the stage of ongoing construction and 17% (794 measures) are in ongoing progress. In contrast, less than half of the preparedness measures (654 out of 1 572, 42%), and a similar share of recovery and review measures (169 out of 408, 41 %) are not started. For preparedness measures, 846 out of 1 572 (54 %) are reported in ongoing construction and a further 46 (3 %) are in ongoing progress. For recovery and review measures, 189 out of 408 (46 %) are in ongoing construction and 20 (5 %) are in ongoing progress (see Tables A13 and A14 in Annex A). Among the FRMPs assessed: ·for the Isonzo (ITN004, part of the ITA RBD), 26 out of 55 measures (47%) are not started, nine (16 %) are in ongoing construction and 20 (36 %) are in ongoing progress, with none completed. ·For the Abruzzo (ITR131), 29 out of 167 measures have not started (17 %), 59 are in construction ongoing (35 %) and 78 are in ongoing progress (47 %), with only one measure (1 %) completed. ·For the Sangro (ITI023), 14 measures are not started (31%), 26 are in ongoing construction (58 %), four are ongoing progress (9 %) and one is completed (2 %). ·For the Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), 345 measures are not started (68 % of the 508 total measures), 89 are in ongoing construction (18 %) and 74 are in ongoing progress (15 %). ·For the Sardinia UoM (ITR201) the majority (48 %) of the measures are ongoing construction or progress (29 and one of the total 62 measures in the UoM respectively), 17 measures (27 %) have not started and 15 measures (24 %) are reported as completed. As noted previously, the ITA and ITE FRMPs both cover several UoMs – including the Isonzo (ITN004) for ITA and the Sangro (ITI023) and Abruzzo (ITR131) for ITE – and are not reported separately.

4.9Measures taken under other Community Acts Member States have been asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure has been implemented. Italy has reported this information for 2 576 measures, in all cases referring to the Water Framework Directive. WFD: Three of the five FRMPs assessed refer to coordination with the RBMPs, but do not identify measures taken under the RBMPs: this is the case for ITA (Eastern Alps), for Puglia/Ofanto and for Abruzzo/Sangro. In contrast, no information was found in the FRMPs for Sardinia (ITR201) or the Central Apennines (ITE). In Italy’s reporting sheets, a total of 2 576 measures across all UoMs (26 %) cite the WFD. Of these, 271 measures (3 %) refer to specific key types of measures under the WFD, while the remaining 2 305 cite the WFD but not a key type of measure. The majority of the measures that cite the WFD are prevention measures (see tables A15 and A16 in Annex A). In the FRMPs assessed, references to the WFD are made for 185 measures in Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), 26 measures in Sardinia (ITR201), 24 measures in Abruzzo (ITR131), 12 measures in Isonzo (ITN004) and nine measures in Sangro (ITI023). EIA Directive: The FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto states that individual measures will undergo an EIA. The FRMPs for the Central Apennines (ITE) and for the Abruzzo and Sangro mentions the EIA Directive without indicating specific actions to be taken under it. The FRMP for the Eastern Alps (ITA) does not include a reference to the EIA Directive, but mentions EIA procedures for several projects prior to the plan itself. No information was found in the FRMP for Sardinia (ITR201). SEA Directive: All five FRMPs assessed have undergone an SEA, as noted also in section 7. The FRMPs, however, contain few other references to the SEA Directive. The FRMPs for the Central Apennines (ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto cite the SEA Directive, mainly indicating that the FRMP itself was subject to an SEA. The Directive is included in the list of references for the FRMP of the Eastern Alps (ITE), but further information was not found in the text. The other three FRMPs assessed did not contain a reference to the Directive. Seveso Directive: The FRMPs for ITA (Eastern Alps) and for the Abruzzo/Sangro both include the protection of Seveso facilities among their sub-objectives. The FRMP for ITE (Central Apennines) mentions the Seveso Directive and includes the protection of Seveso facilities among the context indicators for the monitoring of implementation. No reference to the Seveso Directive was found in the FRMPs for Sardinia (ITR201) or Puglia/Ofanto (including in their annexes on measures). Civil protection mechanism: While all five FRMPs assessed refer to Italy’s Civil Protection bodies, none contains a reference to the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. 4.10Specific groups of measures With regard to spatial planning/land use measures, measures are included in all five FRMPs assessed. For example: ·For the Eastern Alps (ITA), the list of measures includes among others nine measures to incorporate new flood risk scenarios in urban plans in sub-basins (e.g. in the interregional catchment of the Lemene River). ·For Sardinia (ITR201), the list of non-structural measures includes a measure to update rules for territorial governance and land use to address flood risks. ·For Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131), the programme of measures includes measures to establish rules on land use and initiatives to promote the relocation of activities in critical areas. ·The FRMP for the Central Apennines (ITE) also contains measures for relocation from critical areas and guidelines to reduce vulnerability via urban planning rules. ·The FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) also contains a measure for delocalisation, as well as another for restrictions of activities in river bodies, . None of the five FRMPs assessed refer to changes in the framework for land use and spatial planning since 2000, though a couple FRMPs – notably the plan for ITA, Eastern Alps – underline the role that urban expansion has played in aggravating flood risks. Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in all of the five FRMPs assessed. In their main reports, four of the five FRMPs assessed mention the role of NWRMs among their measures (the exception being the FRMP for Sardinia, ITR201). Specific NWRM measures are listed for all five FRMPs assessed: ·In its list of measures, the FRMP for the Eastern Alps (ITA), for example, includes measures for the restoration of areas of natural water expansion –which corresponds to NWRM measure type N03; and for the natural restoration of areas without a description of the specific work. ·The list of measures for the Central Apennines (ITE) and the Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131) includes measures to strengthen the natural functions of river areas in order to improve the management of river flows, though specific details are not provided (in both cases, designated as measure type M31). ·The list of measures for Abruzzo/Sangro includes also measures to restore natural conditions along river courses but without providing specific details. These measures may correspond to NWRM measure types N05 or N08.

·For Sardinia (ITR201), the list of measures includes an action for the renaturalisation of a river, again related to NWRM measure types N05 or N08. Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. Three of the five FRMPs assessed – those for the Eastern Alps (ITA), Central Apennines (ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) – include measures for nature conservation. The Eastern Alps (ITA) FRMP includes measures for the development of protocols for environmental protection. The Central Apennines (ITE) FRMP provides measure protection measures of type M21 for the protection of natural features of the hydrographic network. The Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) FRMP includes measures for the protection of vegetation and analysis of the impact of structural measures on the environment. As noted above, several NWRMs refer to the improvement of natural conditions. No information was found in the FRMPs of Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131) and Sardinia (ITR201) concerning nature conservation measures. No specific references were found in the five FRMPs assessed that they shall take into consideration navigation and port infrastructure. However, it can be noted that one measure for ITA (Eastern Alps) refers to the completion of an inland canal (the Idrovia Padova-Venezia) that can act as a floodway for the Brenta River; the FRMP for Puglia and Ofanto (ITR161I020) mentions port infrastructure among the factors considered in the plan . 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. Even though no measures specifically refer to dredging, some measures refer to river “maintenance” and four of the five FRMPs assessed refer to actions to improve the capacity of rivers to convey water for flood alleviation purposes. The list of measures for ITA (Eastern Alps) includes several measures to improve the laminar flow of rivers (for example for the Brenta River in the Province of Trento) as well as for the creation of floodway channels (for example, a measure to build a floodway channel for the Cormor River in the Province of Udine). The list of measures for Sardinia’s FRMP (ITR201) includes the implementation of “Piani di laminazione”, plans to increase river channel water laminar flow, and the list of measures for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITR131 and ITI023) includes programmes for this. The FRMP for ITE (Central Apennines) includes a measure for structural interventions to improve laminar flow. 4.11Recovery from and resilience to flooding The role of insurance policies with regard to the recovery from flooding, preparedness/resilience to flood or other issues is discussed only in one of the FRMPs assessed. The FRMP for Eastern Alps (ITA) includes in its list of measures several measures related to insurance, among which a study on insurance policies for the Isonzo Basin, ITN004. No further information concerning the role of insurance policies (e.g. what types of insurance is available in flood risk areas) has been found in the FRMPs assessed. 4.12Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP All but one of the FRMPs assessed provide information on the indicators to be used to monitor the progress of implementation of the planned measures. ·Within the Eastern Alps (ITA) FRMP, the separate, annexed FRMP for the Autonomous Province of Bolzano/Bozen identifies an indicator to monitor the implementation of each measure, with numerical values from 0 (not started) to 1 (completed) for the state of progress. ·The main FRMP for ITA as well as the FRMP for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023+ITR131) identified an indicator for each measure, based on the stages of completion listed in the European Commission’s reporting guidance. ·The FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) instead identifies a set of indicators for the FRMP as a whole, grouped by measure aspect. For each, a baseline value is indicated. For example, for protection, one of the 11 indicators calls for a reduction in the area exposed to flood risk and gives the current, baseline value for the indicator. ·The FRMP for ITE (Central Apennines) also states that its indicators are for the plan as a whole. The FRMP refers to three types of monitoring indicators: context; process, the progress of implementation of the plan; and sustainability indicators that present the effects of measures. The three are linked together and also linked to the objectives of the FRMP: for example, one of the overall objectives is to reduce impacts on human health; the process indicators refer to the number of measures financed, underway or completed (these are cross-cutting for all objectives); one of the two context indicators for this objective is the current population exposed to flood risks for each area; and related sustainability indicator is the change in the population exposed to flood risks. ·No information was found in the FRMP for Sardinia (ITR201). The FRMPs provide little information, however, on how monitoring will be carried out. The FRMP for the Eastern Alps (ITA) notes that actions financed by the national Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea will be monitored at national level, also via ISPRA. This FRMP notes that the ReNDiS platform, hosted by ISPRA, will play an important role in monitoring these measures; other FRMPs assessed, such as the FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), also refer to the use of this platform, as do all of Italy’s Reporting summaries. The FRMP for the Central Apennines (ITE) states that the RBD authority (the Tiber River Authority, acting as provisional authority for the whole RBD) will prepare yearly monitoring reports, drawing on information provided by regional bodies. The FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) states that the authorities responsible for each measure will transmit information to the regional basin authority. Information concerning the baseline values against which progress will be measured was not found in all FRMPs assessed. As noted previously specific baseline values are mentioned only in the FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), where a baseline value is indicated for all indicators that will be used. 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 of the WFD. Table 8 Coordination of the development of the FRMPs with the development of the second River Basin Management Plans of the WFD ITA ITE ITR161I020 ITR201 ITI023, ITR131 Integration of FRMP and RBMP into a single plan Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP ✔ ✔ Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD ✔ ✔ ✔ The objectives of the Floods Directive were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a ✔ ✔ * ✔ * Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in the FRMP ✔ ✔ ✔ The RBMP PoMs include win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and NWRMs a ✔ ✔ * ✔ * Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence maintenance or construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and RBMPs Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included ✔ ✔ ✔ Consistent and compliant application of WFD Article 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 for the WFD; * Reporting for the WFD covers RBDs and not UoMs; ** Information found in the FRMP. The five FRMPs assessed provide different levels of information regarding the coordination with the second RBMPs . The Eastern Alps (ITA) FRMP identifies measures that provide synergies with the RBMP, those that are ‘win-win’ for both plans and those that can lead to possible conflicts between the two plans. Win-win measures include non-structural measures such as alert systems as well as renaturalisation measures. Possible conflicts are identified, among others, for structural measures. It should be noted that the Authority that prepared the ITA FRMP also prepared the ITA RBMP. For the Central Apennines (ITE), the FRMP notes that several types of measures will contribute to WFD objectives, including those providing room for the river. The prioritisation of measures includes their effect on the status of water bodies. The FRMP also refers to Art. 4 of the WFD, without providing detail on how coordination will be carried out. The FRMP also notes that coordination between WFD and the Floods Directive is probably easier in other Member States where UoMs and authorities match. For Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), the FRMP cites WFD objectives and states that these are integrated into the FRMP’s objectives. This plan also indicates that certain FRMP measures, including for renaturalisation of river courses, will contribute to the good status objectives under the WFD. Moreover, the monitoring of the implementation of measures will consider WFD objectives. For structural measures, the FRMP states that the EIA process and ex-ante analysis based on a national methodology prepared by ISPRA will be used. The list of measures identifies measures that contribute to WFD objectives. For Sardinia (ITR201), the FRMP refers to the RBMP but does not describe coordination methods, though its objectives include the mitigation of negative impacts on ecological status. Although not explained in the FRMP, the same authority prepares the FRMPs and RBMPs in Sardinia. The reporting sheet for Sardinia states that coordination between FRMP and RBMP objectives was sought in the identification of FRMP measures and also via the NWRMs. While the FRMP for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131) does not mention WFD objectives or other elements of coordination with that Directive, the reporting sheets for these UoMs state that coordination included sharing of the knowledge base as well as the definition of measures. As noted previously, in Italy’s reporting sheets, a total of 2 576 FRMP measures make references to the WFD. These are found in all of Italy’s UoMs and cover flood risk management measure aspects (prevention, preparedness, protection and recovery and review). Many but not all of these measures refer to WFD Key Types of Measures (KTMs), including KTM 5, 6, 14, 21, 23 and 26 (due to the high number of measures and different reporting styles, it is not possible to provide an overview of the number for each KTM). 4.14Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures The following good practices were identified: ·Four of the five FRMPs assessed have prioritised their measures using multicriteria analysis (three using an Italian national system and the fourth using a system adopted from Austria and adapted). ·All five FRMPs assessed include measures to address land use and spatial planning, and all five include NWRMs in their measures. Three of the five FRMPs assessed include measures related to nature protection. ·Four of the five FRMPs assessed identify indicators to monitor implementation, two identifying indicators for measures and two for the FRMP as a whole. One FRMP assessed – for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) – identifies a baseline value for each indicator. The following area for further development was identified: ·Although four of the five FRMPs assessed identify monitoring indicators, the FRMPs do not provide a detailed description of how monitoring of the implementation of measures will be carried out, still, the plans as well as Italy’s reporting sheets refer to a national database, ReNDiS, used to track implementation of measures financed by the national Ministry of Environment. ·Funding sources for measures are defined at a high level.



5. Consideration of climate change According to Italy’s reporting sheets, climate change will be addressed in the updates of the FRMPs (i.e. in the next cycle) for all UoMs, taking into account Italy’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. All of Italy’s reporting sheets refer to a preliminary national document – “Elementi per una Strategia Nazionale di Adattamento ai cambiamenti climatici” (Elements for a National Climate Change Strategy) – approved in October 2014 by Italy’s Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces – and to the “Strategia Nazionale di Adattamento ai Cambiamenti Climatici” (National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, CCAS), approved in June 2015 by an internal decree of the Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea. The National Strategy refers to increased risk of flooding, including pluvial flash floods. While all of the reporting sheets referred to the CCAS, this was not the case for the five FRMPs assessed. In the FRMPs for Sardinia (ITR201) and the Eastern Alps (ITA) there are references to the CCAS, but no reference was found in the plans for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITR131 and ITI023), Central Apennines (ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020). All of Italy’s reporting sheets note that the National CCAS refers to an increase in flood events in the Mediterranean Sea area, including sea flooding in coastal areas as well as an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme meteorological events. The reporting sheet and the FRMP for one of the five FRMPs assessed, the Puglia and Ofanto UoM (ITR16I010), refers to a pilot study that was carried out for a sub-catchment, the Picone river basin. It found that climate change appeared to have less important impact in this basin than other factors, hydraulic and hydrological factors, such as changes in topography (e.g. changes in land use). The five FRMPs assessed, however, in general do not contain specific sections or extensive information on climate change. In the FRMP for the Central Apennines (ITE), there is a brief note on potential changes in the occurrence of extreme events: the FRMP makes reference to “bombe d’acqua” (literally, “water bombs”), an intense phenomenon of high-intensity precipitation. No reference to a shift in the occurrence of extreme events and changes in numerical recurrence times was found in the other four FRMPs assessed. Concerning changes in the sources of flooding, there is only one reference in the reporting sheets: for ITN002 (Arno River), there is a brief reference to increased flash floods and pluvial flooding. In the five FRMPs assessed, however, no reference was found to changes in the main sources of flooding due to climate change scenarios. 5.1Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change Even though the FRMPs assessed include structural and non-structural measures, measures to address land use, spatial planning and pollution risk, little information was found if and how climate change has been considered in the planning of these measures. A review of the five FRMPs assessed found few measures focused on climate change either. One example is seen in the FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), which includes a measure to evaluate the effects of climate changes on floods. The result of that study will be used in the second cycle FRMP for this UoM. 5.2Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change The following area for further development was identified: ·The five FRMPs assessed contain relatively limited information on climate change impacts (and no reference to the national climate change adaptation strategy), and based on the UoM reporting sheets, this appears to be the case for most of Italy’s FRMPs. The objectives of the FRMPs assessed do not refer to addressing climate change impacts, and few measures addressing climate change impacts were identified.

6. Cost-benefit analysis One of the five FRMPs assessed – for ITR161I020, Puglia Regional basins and Ofanto Interregional basin – discusses costs and benefits. The Plan provides an overview of the costs of measures to be financed by the Puglia Region and presents estimates of the costs of floods for three sectors. Flood damages are calculated in terms of the urban/residential, industrial and agricultural sectors. In addition, the reporting sheet for this UoM notes that the last major flooding events in Puglia had an impact on the tourism sector, though this sector is not specifically indicated among those considered in the CBA. The Plan states that recent and historical floods have high costs in terms of transport infrastructure and also in terms of lives (the reporting sheet notes impacts on human health and lives are difficult to quantify and are not included in the analysis.) The Plan indicates that dam