EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 15.12.2021 SWD(2021) 971 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Overview- 2nd Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments 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), the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC amended by Directive 2013/39/EU) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)



















Implementation of planned Programmes of Measures











New Priority Substances











Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk {COM(2021) 970 final} - {SWD(2021) 970 final}



Contents 1.Executive Summary4 2.Introduction and background5 3.Overview of timeliness and completeness of the information reported6 3.1.Timeliness of the reported information7 3.2.Completeness of the reported information9 4.UoMs and Competent Authorities11 5.Implementation of Article 412 5.1.Introduction to Article 4.2 of the Floods Directive12 5.2.Article 4.2(a) – Maps with topography and land use17 5.3.Article 4.2(b) – Assessment of past floods with significant impacts19 5.3.1.General information on past floods20 5.3.2.Sources, mechanisms and characteristics of past floods22 5.3.3.Extent and frequency or recurrence of past floods24 5.3.4.Quantitative data on impacts of past floods27 5.3.5.Methodologies and criteria used for the assessment of the significance of the impacts of past floods32 5.4.Article 4.2(c) – Assessment of past floods without known significant impacts that may have significant impacts if repeated in the future40 5.4.1.Methodologies and criteria used for the assessment of significant past floods without known impacts40 5.5.Article 4.2(d) - Assessment of future floods with potential adverse consequences regardless of significance45

5.5.1.Sources, mechanisms and characteristics of future floods45 5.5.2.Methodologies and criteria used for the assessment of the significance of the consequences of future floods46 5.5.3.Potential adverse consequences of future floods52 5.5.4.Issues considered in the assessment of adverse consequences of future floods54 5.6.PFRA aspects of special interest59 5.6.1.Pluvial floods (flash floods) in urban settings59 5.6.2.Inclusion/exclusion of floods from sewerage systems59 5.7.Changes in Article 4’s assessments since the previous cycle63 5.7.1.Article 4.2(b) – developments since the previous cycle63 5.7.2.Article 4.2(d) -developments since the previous cycle64 5.7.3.Changes to the methodologies of Articles 4.2(b), 2(c) and 4.2(c) since the previous cycle65 5.7.4.Distinction between Articles 4.2(b) and 4.2(c) or 4.2(c) and 4.2(d)67 6.Implementation of Article 5 - APSFRs68 6.1.Methodologies and criteria used for the selection of APSFRs68 6.2.APSFR selection– developments since the previous cycle71 6.3.Number of APSFRS and changes to APSFRs since the previous reporting74 6.4.Sources, mechanisms and characteristics of floods in ASPFRs76 6.5.Adverse consequences associated with APSFRs82 7.Consideration of climate change85 7.1.Evidence of consideration of climate change by the Member States85

7.2.Development of the consideration of climate change in future PFRAs87



List of Acronyms APSFR Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk EEA European Environment Agency EIONET FD European Environment Information and Observation Network Floods Directive FHRM Flood Hazard and Risk Map FRM Flood risk management FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan MS Member State NWRM Natural Water Retention Measures PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments RBD River Basin District (as defined in the WFD) SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment UoM Unit of Management (as defined in the FD, this overlaps with the RBD) WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe List of Member States’ codes AT Austria BE Belgium BG Bulgaria CY Cyprus CZ Czechia DE Germany DK Denmark EE Estonia EL Greece ES Spain FI Finland FR France HR Croatia HU Hungary IE Republic of Ireland IT Italy LT Lithuania LU Luxembourg LV Latvia MT Malta NL The Netherlands PL Poland PT Portugal RO Romania SE Sweden SI Slovenia SK Slovakia



1.Executive Summary This document is an European Union overview of the Member States’ updated preliminary flood risk assessments, and identification of areas of potential significant flood risk, according to Articles 4, 5, 14 and 15 of the Floods Directive. These updates were to be reported to the European Commission by March 2019. The document brings together, and discusses, the findings of a review conducted by the Commission that examined each Member State’s update individually. The findings for each Member State are published in separate documents. At the time of publication, all Member States have reported information on the implementation of this part of the Floods Directive through the European Environment Agency’s Water Information System for Europe. It was not possible to include the update of one Member State, since it reported very late to be included. The present EU overview aims at strengthening flood risk management in the EU The Commission also collects information to create an EU-wide picture to inform the public on certain aspects of policy. The present document may take therefore a broader perspective than the Floods Directive; the text of the latter being the only benchmark against which a Member States’ compliance should be judged. None of the Member States have made any notable changes to their administrative arrangements. Reports detailing the updated preliminary flood risk assessment have been prepared by all Member States covering all river basins. Nearly all Member States published their preliminary flood risk assessments online. Overall, compared to the Member States’ first preliminary flood risk assessments, half have improved data collection and/or methodologies to carry out preliminary flood risk assessments. In the previous Commission review, no distinction was drawn between the methodologies for the application of the various sub-articles under Article 4. This has now become clearer, however, there is still room for improvement. Therefore, Member States should consider providing clearer information on how Article 4 has been applied in the next update of their preliminary flood risk assessment. To aid this process, a flowchart detailing the possible steps involved is included in this document. Although the discourse around floods in urban areas and sea level rise has intensified, it is still river floods that are most frequently registered as a source of significant flooding in the EU. The most common mechanism of floods happening was natural exceedance (of e.g. the confines of a river’s banks or embankments) and the most common characteristic was flash flooding, i.e. flooding that materialises rather quickly. All Member States provided at least some information on how past floods have been assessed and the criteria used for defining significance. In some Member States detailed information on how the criteria and methodologies have been applied are lacking, but in others the methodology is clear and detailed. In fact, two thirds of Member States presented strong evidence of a clear methodology for the assessment of past floods. In addition, “expert judgement” has been relied upon to a lesser extent, mainly being used to verify the results of analysis on the basis of local knowledge. More generally, the present review found that some Member States’ preliminary flood risk assessments would benefit from a clearer presentation of the methodologies applied to identify flood risk and assess its significance, for past and/or future floods. Nevertheless, in just under half the Member States, the criteria for identifying significant future floods have been updated based on current methodologies. An assessment of the information reported on the impact of past floods was not included in the EU overview document (published in 2015) that discussed the Member States’ first ever preliminary flood risk assessments under the Floods Directive. This aspect was looked at this time around, also thanks to improved reporting requirements commonly agreed to with the Member States via the Common Implementation Strategy (a platform to cooperate for better implementation of the water acquis). The conclusion is that information on the impact of past floods is being collected, albeit variably. Some Member States do qualitative assessments, while others collect more detailed, quantitative, data. However, in 60% of river basins in the EU there are no data on the costs from flood damages. There is therefore room for improvement since collecting such data aids for example the calculation of costs and benefits and the prioritisation of measures. Considering other policy developments in the areas of disaster risk management and climate change, a more nuanced attention to disaster loss data is therefore strongly advisable. For the vast majority of Member States there is some or strong evidence that the consequences of future flooding on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity are being considered. Attention to environment and cultural heritage appears to have risen compared to the past since the percentage of areas of potential significant flood risk where environment and cultural heritage were not found to be relevant dropped by around 10 percentage points. Long term developments (socio-economic, infrastructure, land use) have been considered in most Member States but with varying degrees of rigour. There is also evidence that all Member States have considered climate change in their preliminary assessments; this is an improvement on the previous comparable review where the case was unclear for over a third of Member States.

2.Introduction and background The Floods Directive 2007/60/EC (FD) came into force in 2007. It established a framework for flood risk management (FRM) and foresees 6-yearly cycles with the objective to reduce the risk of flood damage in the European Union (EU). The first cycle of implementing the FD covered the period 2010-15. The second cycle covers the period 2016-21. The latter is also the period of implementation of the first Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs), which were established by the Member States at the end of the first cycle. The first FRMPs, but also the first cycle Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs), the Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk (APSFRs) identified, and the Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) were sequentially assessed by the European Commission (the Commission). During the second cycle, Member States are required to have reviewed and updated, by 22 December 2018, their first cycle Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments. This is the subject of the present document. Member States report information to the Commission electronically using dedicated tools and databases developed under the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) Water Information System for Europe (WISE). The reporting guidance and relevant digital tools for reporting under the FD have been updated for the second cycle and are available on the European Environment Information and Observation Network’s (EIONET) Common Data Repository (CDR) . The tables in this report have been generated from the data and information provided by the Member State. The electronic reporting format includes the requirement for the Member States to select from pre-defined options contained in lists (e.g. a list of criteria for identifying past floods with significant adverse impacts). The Member States selected the options that correspond to their respective situations when reporting to the Commission. In addition to the selection of options, the Member States also reported PFRA studies and internet links to further information and this information has also been evaluated as part of the assessment. This document reflects the situation as reported by the Member States to the Commission before the assessment and with reference to PFRAs prepared prior to the reporting. The situation in the Member States may have altered since then. This document includes 26 of the 27 Member States. The individual Member State assessment studies, published separately, provide the background to the present EU overview. Whereas a key role of the Commission is to check compliance with EU legislation, the Commission also seeks information to determine whether existing policies are adequate. The present EU overview and the individual Member States’ PFRA reviews conducted by the Commission, aim at strengthening flood risk management in the EU on the basis of good practice, as it emerges from the implementation of the FD by the Member States themselves. The Commission also collects information to create an EU-wide picture to inform the public on certain aspects of policy. The present document (and the individual reviews it is based on) therefore may take a broader perspective than the FD; the text of the latter being the only benchmark against which a Member States’ compliance to the FD should be judged. 3.Overview of timeliness and completeness of the information reported Member States report information to the Commission electronically using dedicated tools and databases developed under the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) Water Information System for Europe (WISE). The information provision requirements included in the WISE/EIONET (European Environment Information and Observation Network) electronic reporting has been agreed with the Member States and is reflected in “Reporting Guidance” documents. The reporting guidance and relevant tools for reporting under the FD have been updated for the second cycle and are available on EIONET . The information reported to WISE was the starting point for the assessment of Member States’ second cycle PFRAs. The majority of the statistics presented are based on information reported to WISE. Assuming that the Member States accurately transferred the information contained in their PFRAs to EIONET and barring any undetected errors in the transfer of this information to WISE, arising from the use of interfacing electronic tools, these statistics should accurately reflect the content of the PFRAs. 3.1.Timeliness of the reported information Table 1 shows the time periods over which the Member States reported information to the EIONET CDR. According to the timescales of the FD, information on the second PFRAs should have been reported by 22 March 2019. None of the Member States completed their reporting by March 2019 and only one third of Member States commenced reporting in March 2019. However, over half completed a substantial part of their reporting within a few months from March 2019. It should be noted however that due to an update in the folder structure of the reporting infrastructure and due to a later issue with the number of processes that the servers could handle, Member States were given until 30 August 2019 to complete their submissions. More generally, reasons for late reporting include one or more of the following: delayed preparation of PFRAs, data quality control issues or latent bugs in the reporting infrastructure, corrections and updates to previous submissions or provision of supplementary information. As can been seen from Table 1, eight Member States started uploading information in March 2019, but no Member States had completed their reporting by this date. Denmark and the Netherlands were the first Member States to complete reporting (in June 2019) followed by Slovakia in July 2019. By December 2020 all Member States, with the exception of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, and Malta, had uploaded the bulk of the information required to allow the assessments to commence. It should be noted that some Member States updated the information reported after the assessments had commenced. By way of example only, Austria provided updated files in March 2021, and Latvia provided updated spatial data for APSFRs in January 2021. Greece, Cyprus and Malta reported by April 2021. At the time of writing, Bulgaria had not yet completed its reporting. Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21 AT BE BG Did not report in time to be assessed by the Commission CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LU LT LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK 3.2.Completeness of the reported information Table 2 shows the information reported by each Member State to the EIONET CDR. It should be noted that the FD does not require information about CAs or UoMs to be reported for every cycle if it has not changed. As a result, many Member States have not needed to report information on CAs or UoMs. This may also explain why some UoMs have not reported spatial data. Twenty five of the 26 Member States that reported information presented evidence to show that a PFRA has been prepared for all UoMs. The exception is Spain where no PFRA was reported for the Balearic Islands (ES110) in time for the assessment. The approach to preparing the PFRA varied between Member States. Those Member States with only one UoM understandably prepared only one PFRA. Fourteen Member States prepared one PFRA document that included all the UoMs in the Member States. Seven Member States produced PFRAs for each UoM. In Finland, France and Portugal a nationally agreed template was used. In Italy, PFRAs were prepared for each River Basin District (RBD) covering several UoMs against a nationally agreed template.

The length and clarity of the PFRAs varied between the Member States. Some were clearly written and explained the methodology that has been used in way that would be easy for the general public to understand. Others were written in rather technical language that would be difficult for the layman to interpret, whilst others did not contain sufficient information to allow the adequacy of the methodologies employed to be determined. Some included hyperlinks to where more detailed methodological information could be found. Some included in-depth analysis of certain aspects of the PFRA, e.g. past floods or climate change, but it was not always clear how this information had then been used in the assessment of flood risk. Most of the Member States published the PFRA online. One Member State had not made their PFRA available in this manner, whilst another had already consigned the documents to an archive server.



MS CAs UoMs PFRA APSFRs APSFR Tracking PFRA past events (spatial) PFRA future events (spatial) APSFR (spatial) AT BE BG Did not report in time to be assessed by the Commission CY CZ 1 of 3 DE 7 of 10 5 of 10 DK 2 of 4 EE 2 of 3 2 of 3 2 of 3 2 of 3 EL ES 24 of 25 24 of 25 24 of 25 24 of 25 24 of 25 24 of 25 FI 6 of 8 6 of 8 6 of 8 FR HR HU IE IT 46 of 47 45 of 47 45 of 47 46 of 47 LT LU LV MT NL 2 of 4 PL 7 of 9 6 of 9 6 of 9 6 of 9 6 of 9 6 of 9 PT RO 11 of 12 SE 5 of 6 3 of 6 5 of 6 SI 1 of 2 SK 1 of 2 Key: Data reported for all UoMs Data reported for some UoMs Data not reported Notes: EE: No floods occurred in one UoM (EE3) therefore no APSFRs have been identified. ES: No data was reported for UoM ES110 in time for the assessment. HU: No change in spatial data for future floods since first cycle. FI: No significant flood risk identified in two UoMs (FIVHA1 and FIWDA). PL: No data reported for two UoMs (PL3000, PL4000). Incomplete data for PL8000 and PL9000.



4.UoMs and Competent Authorities The FD provides that Member States may make changes to their administrative arrangements which include their Units of Management (UoMs) and their relevant Competent Authorities (CAs). If such changes occur, Member States are required to notify the Commission within three months. None of the Member States have reported that they have made notable changes to administrative arrangements. The UoMs are shown in Figure 1. Units of Management/International River Basin Districts (within European Union) Units of Management/International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 5.Implementation of Article 4

5.1.Introduction to Article 4.2 of the Floods Directive Article 4.2 of the FD requires Member States to undertake a preliminary flood risk assessment (PFRA). The Directive requires that PFRA be based on available or readily derivable information, such as records and studies on long term developments, in particular impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods. The PFRA shall include at least the following: ·Maps of the river basin district at the appropriate scale including the borders of the river basins, sub-basins and, where existing, coastal areas, showing topography and land use (Article 4.2(a)); ·A description of the floods which have occurred in the past and which had significant adverse impacts on human health, and for which the likelihood of similar future events is still relevant, including their flood extent and conveyance routes and an assessment of the adverse impacts they have entailed (Article 4.2(b)); ·A description of the significant floods which have occurred in the past, where significant adverse consequences of similar future events might be envisaged (Article 4.2(c)); and ·Where the specific needs of the Member States require it, an assessment of the potential adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, taking into account as far as possible issues such as the topography, the position of watercourses and their general hydrological and geomorphological characteristics, including floodplains as natural retention areas, the effectiveness of existing man-made flood defence infrastructures, the position of populated areas, areas of economic activity and long-term developments including the impact of climate change on the occurrence of floods (Article 4.2(d)). Figure 2 shows the relationship between Articles 4.2 (b), (c) and (d), and Article 5 (the selection of APSFRs) and depicts the recommended steps in order to carry out a full Article 4 and Article 5 analysis. Consider long term developments such as climate and land use change 5.2.Article 4.2(a) – Maps with topography and land use As stated above, Article 4.2(a) states that the PFRA should include maps of the river basin district at the appropriate scale including the borders of the river basins, sub-basins and, where existing, coastal areas, showing topography and land use. Figure 3 shows that all the Member States have included maps, or made them available through a map viewer. Figure 4 shows the number of Member States that have presented strong evidence or some evidence of the required features being included on the maps in their PFRAs and/or any interactive map viewers that had been made available to support the PFRA process. In some cases, the information required was shown on the map viewer, but not in the map published in the PFRA document, or vice versa, which accounts for the “some evidence” being noted. In the case of topography and land use “some evidence” has also been applied where only some elements of topography and land use have been included, or where the information has been included for some UoMs. Table 3 shows which Member States have included which items in the PFRA. It can clearly be seen that whilst the borders of river basins are largely well represented in the maps, the same cannot be said for the borders of the sub-basins. Most Member States show some topographic and land use information, however, in several cases this could be improved (e.g. use a different scale). Twelve Member States provided links to specific flood related geoportals that allowed information directly related to the PFRA to be examined interactively.





Note: five Member States are landlocked (AT, CZ, HU, LU, SK) and therefore the display of coastal areas is not applicable.

MS Maps have been provided Borders of river basins Sub-basins Coastal areas (where existing) Topography Land use AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK Key: Strong evidence Some evidence Not applicable Data not reported 5.3.Article 4.2(b) – Assessment of past floods with significant impacts Article 4.2(b) requires Member States to provide a description of past floods with known significant adverse impacts that may reoccur. Reporting requires a methodology for defining what constituted a ‘significant adverse impact’ at the time of flooding. To achieve this, Member States’ CAs need to collect information on the floods that occurred and the impacts that ensued.

5.3.1.General information on past floods Figure 5 shows the total number of historic flood events that were included by the Member States in the second cycle reporting exercise, whilst Figure 6 shows the past floods that were reported as having occurred during the period 2012 – 2018 (i.e. during the second cycle); in total around 2 700 flood events. Three Member States did not report any historic flood information to the EIONET CDR. However, in their PFRA reports: ·Lithuania provided information on 17 significant flood events that occurred in the period 2011-2017; ·Malta provided information on eight pluvial foods that had occurred during the second cycle. ·Slovenia provided information on a total of 360 flood events of which 145 occurred after 2010.

Croatia reported the largest number of events (699, slightly over a quarter of the total number of events reported by Member States between 2012 and 2018). Figure 7 summarises the time periods of the floods reported in the second cycle (floods that occurred during the second cycle, 2012-18, but also before). This shows that half of the floods reported in the second cycle relate to time periods before 2012. The oldest flood event reported (by Poland) in the second cycle was from 1829. Slightly over one third of the flood events reported relate to the period 2000-2010. 5.3.2.Sources, mechanisms and characteristics of past floods Figure 8 shows the sources of flooding for the flood events reported that occurred in the period 2012-2018. This shows that for most Member States fluvial flooding remains the most significant source, although for Sweden, pluvial flooding and seawater flooding are reported as the only sources of floods in this period. Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Finland, Hungary and Latvia have not reported pluvial flooding as a source of past floods in the period 2012-2018. In addition to Sweden, floods from seawater have been reported by 13 other Member States. Floods from groundwater have been reported by four Member States, whilst floods from artificial manmade infrastructure have been reported by six Member States. Notes: -More than one source of flooding may have been identified for a flood event. -Bulgaria did not report in time, Lithuania, Malta and Slovenia did not report flood event data. Figure 9 shows the sources, mechanisms and characteristics of flood events that took place in the period 2012-2018. This shows that at an EU level fluvial flooding is the most significant source (99% of flood events), followed by flooding from seawater (slightly under six for every ten floods) and pluvial flooding (45%). Nearly all floods were generated from natural exceedances (97%) with blockages, defence failures and defence exceedance being other significant causes. The most common characteristics were flash flooding (slightly over two thirds), medium onset flooding (one third), other rapid onset flooding (slightly under three out of every 10) and slow onset flooding (slightly over a quarter). It should be noted that although the source of flooding was reported as “no data” for only 2% of events the mechanism of flooding was reported as no data for slightly over a third of flood events, and the characteristics of flooding were reported as no data for slightly over a quarter of flood events. Note: More than one source, mechanism and characteristic may have been identified for a flood event 5.3.3.Extent and frequency or recurrence of past floods

Some Member States included detailed information in their PFRAs on how they have collected information on past floods. For example, Belgium, the Republic of Ireland and Portugal have developed standardised templates, on-line data collection tools and have drawn on wider information sources such as newspapers. Some Member States have cast the net more widely in respect of the organisations from whom information is collected, for example, Poland supplemented information on the floods that took place before 2012 (so during the first cycle) with new data obtained from various sources including a survey of municipalities, regional authorities, fire brigades and other stakeholders. The amount and quality of quantitative information reported on the duration, extent and frequency of past floods varies widely between Member States. All Member States that reported past floods reported the date of the flooding. Figure 10 shows the quantitative data reported for date, location, extent, duration, and frequency/recurrence at the event level by Member States.



Note: Bulgaria did not report, Lithuania, Malta and Slovenia did not report flood event data.



Table 4 shows the number of UoMs in each Member States for which data on extent, duration and frequency/recurrence was reported. MS Data reported for some or all events on extent of flooding Data reported some or all events on duration of flood Data reported some or all events on frequency or recurrence of flooding AT 1 of 3 UoMs 1 of 3 UoMs BE 6 of 7 UoMs CY CZ 1 of 3 UoMs 1 of 3 UoMs DE 3 of 10 UoMs 7 of 10 UoMs 6 of 10 UoMs DK 3 of 4 UoMs 3 of 4 UoMs EE EL ES 10 of 25 UoMs 8 of 25 UoMs FI 3 of 8 UoMs 2 of 8 UoMs FR 13 of 14 UoMs 13 of 14 UoMs HR HU IE IT 10 of 47 40 of 47 UoMs 31 of 47 LT LU 1 of 2 UoMs 1 of 2 UoMs LV MT NL PL 6 of 9 6 of 9 PT 10 of 11 UoMs RO SE 5 of 6 UoMs 5 of 6 UoMs SI SK Notes: AT: Data reported for AT1000 only. No floods occurred in AT2000 or AT5000. CZ: Data reported for CZ5000 only. No floods occurred in CZ1000 or CZ6000. DE: Floods reported for 7 UoMs. No floods occurred in DE7000, DE9500, or DE9610. EE: Data reported for EE1 and EE2. No floods occurred in EE3. ES: Data reported for 21 UoMs. No floods occurred in ES014, ES150, or ES160. FI: Data reported for FIVHA3, FIVHA4, FIVHA5. No floods occurred in FIVHA1, FIVHA2, FIVHA6, FIVHA7, or FIWDA. FR: Data reported for 13 UoMs. No floods occurred in FRB2. IT: Floods reported for 40 UoMs. No floods occurred in ITI022, ITI029, ITN004, ITR061, ITR151, ITR152, or ITR154. LU: Floods reported in LU RB_000 only. No floods occurred in LU RB_001.

PL: Floods reported in 6 UoMs. No floods occurred in PL3000, PL4000 or PL8000. Key: All UoMs Some UoMs Data not reported All Member States that reported past floods reported the date of flooding for all events, and all but two (Spain and Poland) reported the location for all events. Only Romania reported data on the extent, duration and frequency/recurrence for all flood events. Germany and Latvia reported all this information for some events, but not for all. Only six Member States reported some information on the extent of flooding. As stated above, Romania reported the extent of flooding for all events, whilst Poland reported this information for 96% of events and Latvia for 86% of events. Quantitative information on the extent of flooding (either area inundated, or river length flooded) was not reported in nearly eight out of every ten UoMs. Information on the duration of flooding was reported by most Member States with ten Member States reporting duration for all flood events. Of those Member States that reported flood events, three Member States did not report information on the duration of flooding for any events. Nine Member States reported information on the frequency or recurrence of all flood events, but of those Member States that reported flood events four Member States did not report any information. Also the findings of this paragraph point towards increasing the effort of recording information around flood events in order to prepare better responses in the future. In the first cycle, four Member States applied Article 13.1(b) across all their UoMs and were not required to report information on historic flood events. Other Member States reported flood events with data on type and consequences. At the time the first cycle EU overview document was written, a total of 18 153 historic flood events were reported: 15 660 with data, 2 493 with no data. However, the assessment did not make a distinction between data on the extent, duration and frequency of flooding and data on the impacts of flooding. The amount of quantitative information reported on the extent, duration and frequency of past events has improved in the second cycle, but there is scope for further improvements in the third cycle of reporting. 5.3.4.Quantitative data on impacts of past floods In the 2020 national reporting of risk assessments under the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM), floods were the most commonly identified natural disaster of concern, and floods risk management is therefore an important component of overall disaster risk management. Considering the effects of climate change, it is expected this will continue being the case. Being in possession of robust disaster loss data improves modelling of disaster risk, the calculation of cost and benefit ratios to ensure effective and transparent investment decisions (including the prioritisation of measures) and helps the public understand the importance of the investments. Also, the assessment of the overall economic damage from disasters underpins the understanding of the macroeconomic impacts of disasters for the purpose of managing public finances, monetary stability and the resilience of financial systems. To appreciate the amount of future potential losses, PESETA IV projected that with 3°C global warming, river flood damage in the EU and UK in 2100 would be six times larger than current losses, reaching €48 billion/year. Without mitigation and adaptation measures, annual damage from coastal flooding in the EU and UK could increase sharply from 1.4 €billion nowadays to almost 240 €billion by 2100. The amended UCPM therefore foresees (Article 6) that “…MS shall:… (f) in line with international commitments, improve the collection of disaster loss data at national or the appropriate sub-national level to ensure evidence-based scenario building…” Further, the EU is party to the UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, which requires the evaluation of disaster-related losses and economic impacts, and sets a target to reduce such losses by 2030. At EU policy level, climate-related disaster loss data is needed for several policy areas. For example, to improve the economic foundation of adaptation policy and disaster management planning, to increase transparency about climate risks, to inform the European Semester, or to tailor Common Agricultural Policy support for loss recovery and prevention. Thus, there is a need to improve the gathering and access to disaster loss data. As a response to this need, the Risk Data Hub was developed by the Commission and hosted in the Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre. The Risk Data Hub is a geoportal offering EU wide harmonized multi-hazard risk and loss data. It is a central repository for recording, sharing and monitoring curated disaster damage and loss data obtained from various open source databases. The new EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change promotes and supports the use of its Risk Data Hub to harmonise the recording and collection of comprehensive and granular climate-related risk and losses data. It also encourages national level public private partnerships to collect and share such data. The FD introduced in 2007 the requirement for Member States, on the basis of available or readily derivable information, to describe past floods and assess their adverse impacts, and to make an assessment of the potential adverse consequences of future floods. The data on past floods collected via the PFRA process could make a useful contribution to closing loss data gaps. Consequently, Member States were asked, through the updated reporting infrastructure, to provide more detailed information, where available, on the costs of damage resulting from historic flood events as: ·The total cost of damage in €; ·The total cost of damage as a proportion of GDP; or ·A qualitative assessment as a damage class: ­I - Insignificant ­L - Low

­M - Medium ­H - High ­VH - Very high (VH) ­NA – Not Applicable; or ­U – Unknown. Figure 11 shows the types of impact information that was provided at flood event level by Member States. Of those Member States who reported event data, nine did not report a qualitative or quantitative assessment of the level of impact of flood events, although the four broad types of impact as required by the FD (economy, health, cultural heritage, environment) were identified.



Notes: -Bulgaria did not report, Lithuania, Malta and Slovenia did not report flood event data. -Although it appears Hungary provided quantitative data on the impact of all flood events reported, it should be noted that Hungary only reported one event in the second cycle. Six other Member States reported quantitative data totalling €3 778 527 772 for historic floods (over the years 2012-18), with Italy doing so for 85% of a total of 310 flood events. The average level of damage per event for these six Member States is shown in Figure 12.



Note: Greece also provided data on the damage by event, but the data extracted from the CDR appeared to be erroneous. Eleven Member States provided a qualitative assessment of the impact of flood events, with Cyprus and Luxembourg doing so for all flood events, and Austria doing so for 98% of events.

The data reported on the impact of past floods in the first cycle is described in the section on duration, extent and frequency of flooding above. The amount of quantitative information reported on the impact of past events has improved in the second cycle, but there is scope for further improvements in the third cycle of reporting. In addition to the data reported to the EIONET CDR on extent, duration, recurrence and impact of flooding, there is often more detail presented in the PFRA reports or in other documents. For example, Austria provided a file containing detailed information on each of the 45 significant floods that have occurred since 2011. The information collected includes the date and location of each flood, the duration, frequency, origin, cause and mechanisms of each flood and the damage caused in terms of the area, inhabitants affected and total damage costs. Information is also included on the cost of damage prevention in the future as a total cost per event ranging from €20k-€5 million (total cost €5.9 million), and the costs incurred to repair damage per event by one of the two Federal Agencies responsible, the Federal Hydraulic Engineering Administration (cost ranged from €2 - €5.5 million and totalled in excess of €18.25 million). The spreadsheet allows for collection of data from the other Federal Agency with responsibility, the Torrent and Avalanche Control, but no data has currently been included. Hungary, who reported only one significant flood in the second cycle PFRA, provided a detailed textual description in the PFRA document, in addition to providing qualitative and quantitative information (economic damage) in the report to the EIONET CDR. 5.3.5.Methodologies and criteria used for the assessment of the significance of the impacts of past floods Article 4.2(b) of the FD requires Member States to identify the adverse impacts on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity of past floods for which the likelihood of similar future events is still relevant, including their flood extent, and conveyance routes and an assessment of the adverse impacts they have entailed. Figure 13 shows the criteria used in UoMs to assess the impact of past floods, and Table 5 shows the criteria used in the UoMs in each Member State. The most used criteria are: ·Return period (nearly two thirds of UoMs) ·Flooded area (slightly over six for every 10 UoMs); ·Residents affected (exactly six out of every 10 UoMs); ·Commercial area affected (57% of UoMs); and ·Buildings affected (54% of UoMs). A number of UoMs (28%) used other criteria. Examples of these include the number of fatalities caused by flooding, trams being blocked for several days and ecological damage due to pollution of a protected area (Austria), the number of “memorable” events and the number of fatalities (France), the declaration of emergency by the state and/or fatalities due to floods (Greece) and the number of evacuations (the Netherlands). Expert judgement was used by 17% of UoMs. Examples of how this was applied include: ·The use of local knowledge and field expertise to identify the floods with the most significant impacts (Belgium/Wallonia). ·The historical storm surges are assessed and described with five categories: Water Level, Meteorology, Flood, Damage and Human Consequences. For each category, the parameters Data Availability, Data Quality and Phenomenon were assessed on a scale from 0 to 3. Under these, the categories Injuries and People represent the consequences of the flood, where the parameter Phenomenon describes the extent. If the phenomenon of an incident is 2 or greater, the flood is defined as having extensive damage (Denmark). ·Assessment of impacts conducted by gathering all of the available data and reviewing it by experts on case to case basis (Lithuania). ·Definition of areas where floods with significant adverse impacts may reoccur based on size and location of the sub-catchment, predominant land use of the sub-catchment, runoff volume generated at the basin outlet of the sub-catchment, documented flood events in the past within the sub-catchment (Malta). ·Data on historical floods obtained and updated mainly by competent units as a result of a survey of municipalities, communes, provinces, crisis management centers, provincial fire brigade units, irrigation and water authorities (Poland). Note: More than one criteria can be used to assess the impact of past floods.

MS Specific weighting systems/benchmark defined to assess significance Expert Judgement Speed of onset of flood Whether a specific flood warning level was triggered Other Duration of occurrence Community assets affected Required amount of money in compensation Level of damage caused (e.g. high, medium, low) Infrastructure affected Number of buildings affected Affected area with commercial or industrial use Number of residents in flooded area Flooded area Return period or probability of occurrence AT BE 4 of 7 2 of 7 3 of 7 4 of 7 CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES 3 of 25 1 of 25 3 of 25 2 of 25 7 of 25 15 of 25 17 of 25 15 of 25 14 of 25 11 of 25 16 of 25 15 of 25 4 of 25 FI 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 FR 2 of 14 3 of 14 1 of 14 HR HU IE IT 1 of 47 33 of 47 26 of 47 38 of 47 38 of 47 38 of 47 42 of 47 LT LU LV MT NL PL 7 of 9 7 of 9 PT 9 of 11 1 of 11 10 of 11 2 of 11 1 of 11 1 of 11 RO SE SI SK 1 of 2 1 of 2 1 of 2 Key: Criteria used in all UoMs Criteria used in some UoMs Criteria not known to have been used in any UoMs Figure 14 shows the number of Member States where the results of the individual Member States assessments show that there is strong, some or no evidence of a clear methodology being in place for the assessment of past floods. This shows that almost two thirds of the Member States have presented strong evidence to show that a clear methodology is in place for the assessment of past floods. Two Member States (Malta and Slovakia) presented no evidence in the reported information. Figure 15 shows the percentage of UoMs (as a proportion of the total of 206 UoMs in the EU) that indicated impacts of past flood events in the second cycle PFRAs. The greatest number of UoMs (nearly four fifhts) reported economic impacts on infrastructure as a result of flooding and slightly over two thirds reported economic impacts on property. Impacts on human health as a result of flood events were reported by 56% of UoMs, and impact on the health and social well-being of communities reported by slightly under half of UoMs. The impact of flooding on cultural heritage has been accounted for with 46% of the UoMs reporting impacts of flood events on cultural assets but the impact of flooding on the environment appears to be less prevalent with a bit over a quarter of UoMs reporting impacts to protected areas, just under a quarter reporting impacts to water bodies and a bit less than a quarter reporting impacts on pollution sources.



Figure 16 presents the impact reported for flood locations for events that occurred only in the period 2012-2018. “Not applicable” was reported as the most significant impact for impacts on human health (84%), the environment and cultural heritage (each 82%). However, impacts on infrastructure (assets such as utilities, power generation, transport, storage and communication) were reported in 43% of locations, on property (such as homes and businesses) in 29% of locations and on economic activity (such as manufacturing, construction, retail, services and other sources of employment) in 12% of locations. Other economic impacts were reported in 28% of locations, these included: ·Economic activity which is significant in terms of ensuring the functions vital to society (Finland); ·Hydraulic works-longitudinal defence works such as embankments, bank walls, groynes (Italy).





Many of the UoMs use quantitative data to evaluate the significance of the impact of past floods. For example, in the Netherlands, the impact on populations and the cost of the damage incurred is assessed, whilst in Latvia the focus is on the expenditure that has been required to make good the damage. In Belgium (Flanders), the assessment of past floods is based on data from the disaster fund and the insurance sector. The complexity of the methodology used to identify significant past floods varies widely between Member States. Some use a simple methodology, for example Slovenia identified past floods as significant if: (1) there were fatalities; (2) there was damage to people’s property; (3) there was damage to infrastructure including cultural heritage. Others, such as Portugal, applied a classification scheme based on the damage to a number of receptors which were combined to give an overall classification. The two attributes that are singled out for consideration in the assessment of significance of impact according to Article 4.2 (b) are: ·The extent of past flooding; and ·Conveyance routes. Figure 17 presents the number of Member States where the results of the Commission’s individual Member State assessments show that there is strong, some or no evidence of either the extent of past flooding and conveyance routes being taken into consideration in the assessment of impact of past floods. For 11 Member States there is strong evidence that the extent of flooding has been considered, with some evidence presented for a further eight Member States. For example, in Denmark, extent of flooding is classified on a scale of 0, 1, 2 or 3 depending on data availability and quality. Italy has developed a database (FloodCat) and a data entry platform (Heroic) which enables information on flood events, including spatial data on the extent of flooding, to be captured and used for the assessment of past floods as required by both Article 4.2(b) and 4.2(c). However, according to the reported information, only six Member States presented strong evidence of having considered conveyance routes in the assessment of past floods. Luxembourg provided a detailed assessment of a flood that occurred in January 2011 which included the use of satellite imagery to map the conveyance route of flood which will contribute to the refinement of models in the future. A further nine Member States presented some evidence of having done so. Some Member States noted that consideration of conveyance routes is an implicit part of the PFRA (e.g. Austria) or is part of flood hazard modelling and mapping (e.g. Sweden). 5.4.Article 4.2(c) – Assessment of past floods without known significant impacts that may have significant impacts if repeated in the future 5.4.1.Methodologies and criteria used for the assessment of significant past floods without known impacts Article 4.2(c) requires Member States to include a description of the significant floods (in terms of extent) which have occurred in the past (without significant impacts however), where significant adverse consequences of similar future events might be envisaged due to climate and/or socio-economic change. Figure 18 shows the number of Member States where strong evidence, some evidence or no evidence was found of a clear and distinct methodology being in place for the implementation of Article 4.2(c). Only seven Member States were found to have provided strong evidence of a clear and distinct methodology being in place for the assessment of such floods whilst 12 Member States presented some evidence. In most of these cases there was evidence that this had been considered, but the methodology was not presented in a clear way, or there was no distinction between the methodologies applied in relation to Article 4.2(b) or Article 4.2(d). The remaining Member States presented no evidence that Article 4.2(c) had been addressed. In most cases no reasons were provided for this, but Poland did state that Article 4.2(c) had not been applied due to a lack of data. Figure 19 shows the criteria used by UoMs to define significant past floods (without impacts at the time) which may have an impact in the future as reported by Member States to the EIONET CDR.

Note: More than one criteria can be applied for the assessment of past floods. Table 6 shows which of these criteria were selected by which Member States. The most frequently used criteria were flooded area and return period (slightly under two thirds of UoMs each), buildings affected (also a bit under two thirds of UoMs), residents affected, and commercial area affected (61% of UoMs each). Weighting systems were used by only 14% of UoMs. Slightly less than a fifth of UoMs reported that other criteria were used, these included (similar to Article 4.2(b)): ·Number of fatalities caused by flooding, trams being blocked for several days, ecological damage due to pollution of a protected area (Austria); ·Harmful consequence for the environment and cultural heritage (Finland); ·Number of deaths and “memorable” events (France); ·Indication of frequency, number of evacuations and date of occurrence, after 1900 (the Netherlands). Expert judgement was used in 28% of UoMs, mostly in conjunction with other criteria. Examples of how this was applied include: ·Definition of areas where significant past floods without known significant adverse impacts but where significant adverse consequences might be envisaged based on size and location of the sub-catchment, predominant land use of the sub-catchment, runoff volume generated at the basin outlet of the sub-catchment, documented flood events in the past within the sub-catchment (Malta). ·The likely impact that would occur should urban development occur in areas that have flooded in the past with no impact (Sweden). Only Croatia used expert judgement alone. Four floods were identified for further assessment but the exact methodology used is not clear. In the first cycle’s EU overview document no distinction was drawn between the methodology for Articles 4.2(b) and 4.2(c). Although in the second cycle this has become clearer, it is not possible to compare and determine whether the situation with respect to discerning between Articles 4.2(b) and 4.2(c) has improved in the second cycle. Member States should consider providing clearer information on how Article 4.2(c) has been applied. A comparison will be possible in the third cycle. MS Specific weighting systems/benchmark defined to assess significance Other criteria Speed of onset of flood Whether a specific flood warning level was triggered Duration of occurrence Expert Judgement Required amount of money in compensation Level of damage caused (e.g. high, medium, low) Community assets affected Infrastructure affected Number of buildings affected Number of residents in flooded area Return period or probability of occurrence Affected area with commercial or industrial use Flooded area AT BE 1 of 7 4 of 7 1 of 7 3 of 7 BG No data reported CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES 2 of 25 1 of 25 10 of 25 6 of 25 14 of 25 7 of 25 14 of 25 16 of 25 15 of 25 11 of 25 14 of 25 FI 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 FR 2 of 14 3 of 14 HR HU IE IT 1 of 47 33 of 47 26 of 47 38 of 47 38 of 47 38 of 47 42 of 47 LT LU LV MT NL PL 7 of 9 PT 1 of 11 10 of 11 RO SE SI SK 1 of 2 Key: Criteria used in all UoMs Criteria used in some UoMs Criteria not known to have been applied in any UoMs 5.5.Article 4.2(d) - Assessment of future floods with potential adverse consequences regardless of significance 5.5.1.Sources, mechanisms and characteristics of future floods Figure 20 shows the sources, mechanisms and characteristics of potential future flood events, predicted as a result of the assessment conducted according to Article 4.2(d). This shows that the source of the majority (three quarters) of floods is expected to be fluvial flooding, followed by sea water flooding (15%). Only 4.5% of floods are expected to be pluvial. The main mechanism of flooding for future floods is reported to be natural exceedance (43% of floods), defined as “flooding of land by waters exceeding the capacity of their carrying channel or the level of adjacent lands”. The most frequent characteristic of flooding is expected to be flash flooding (a quarter), although no data was reported for 40% of future floods identified. It is surprising that the proportion of pluvial floods expected is so low, this may however reflect uncertainty from the part of Member States about how to best deal with pluvial floods in the framework of the FD.

5.5.2.Methodologies and criteria used for the assessment of the significance of the consequences of future floods Article 4.2(d) requires that an assessment of the potential adverse consequences of future floods is carried out for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, taking into account as far as possible issues such as the topography, the position of watercourses and their general hydrological and geomorphological characteristics, including floodplains as natural retention areas, the effectiveness of existing manmade flood defence infrastructures, the position of populated areas, areas of economic activity and long-term developments including impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods. Figure 21 shows the number of Member States where strong evidence or some evidence was found of a clear and distinct methodology being in place for the implementation of Article 4.2(d). This shows that all Member States have presented evidence of a methodology being in place, with half the Member States presenting strong evidence. A comparison of the numbers in Figure 14, Figure 18 and Figure 21 hints at Member States having expended more effort in assessing the consequences of future floods (considering also the requirement to identify APSFRs) than assessing the impacts of past floods. This forward-looking approach is intuitive, possibly justified, as long as there is reasonable confidence that the work done analysing past floods has yielded all the necessary information to reliably support the prediction and estimation of potential damage of future floods. Figure 22 and Table 7 present the criteria used by the Member States to identify potential adverse consequences of floods based on the information reported. This shows that 86% of UoMs used the criterion “Potential number of permanent residents affected by the flood extent in flood plains”, 77% of UoMs used the criterion “Potential adverse consequences to economic activity (e.g. manufacturing, service and construction industries)”, 77% used the criterion “Potential adverse impacts on cultural assets and cultural landscapes” and 72% used the criterion “Potential adverse consequences to infrastructural assets”. Note: More than one criteria can be applied for the assessment of the potential consequences of future floods. At the other end of the scale, 16% of UoMs used the criterion “Recurrence periods or probability of exceedance in combination with land use” and 15% of UoMs have applied specific weighting systems defined to assess significance. The use of “other” criteria was reported by one out of every 10 UoMs, these included: ·Population development, overnight stays (fluctuations in the probability of stay due to tourism) (Austria), ·Adverse impacts on ecological assets; vegetation and habitats (Belgium), ·Inclusion of important contingency points in the risk mapping. Emergency points are police, fire brigade, emergency centres and hospitals (Denmark), ·Number fatalities, perception of risk, disruption of society, number of affected drinking water abstraction locations, number of affected bathing water locations, number of affected IED installations and damage potential exceeds specific monetary threshold (the Netherlands), ·Potential negative consequences for the environment (Natura 2000 sites and protected areas) (Poland). Expert judgement was used by 17% of UoMs. Examples of how this was applied include:

·The assessment of the development of economic activity (Austria), ·Determining the consequences of future floods from a vulnerability matrix. Vulnerability data is collected by national data sets retrieved from a wide range of data providers. The vulnerability is indexed by expert assessment in collaboration with relevant authorities. The vulnerability categories included are Population, Land Use, Cultural Heritage, Infrastructure, Potentially Polluting Businesses, Contingency, Critical Infrastructure and Economic Activity (Denmark). ·The inclusion of regional and local conditions in the assessment of flood risk (Finland). Some Member States provided detailed information on the methodology used for defining future flood risk. For example, in mainland Finland the assessment of future flood risks is made using an altitude model and spatial data, which considers the location and hydrological and geomorphological characteristics of water bodies, the effectiveness of regulatory and flood defense structures and other available flood risk management measures, and long-term change of conditions, including climate change impacts. Slovenia carried out a detailed GIS based analysis to evaluate future flood risk, whilst in Lithuania locations which are subject to future flood risk are identified by considering the location of significant past floods, topography, expected climate change impacts, location of water courses and their general hydrological and geomorphological characteristics. Once rivers or territories with future flood risks are identified, a detailed assessment of adverse consequences of future floods is performed. Latvia used a detailed methodology for calculating the potential consequences of future flooding including the development of a social index to express risks to social groups. The number of significant future floods identified by each Member State is shown in Figure 23. MS Potential number of permanent residents affected by the flood extent in flood plains Potential value/area of property affected (residential area and non-residential area) Potential number of buildings affected (residential and non-residential) Potential adverse consequences to infrastructural assets Damage potential exceeds specific threshold (area) Potential economic damage Potential adverse consequences on water bodies Potential sources of pollution triggered from industrial installations Potential adverse consequences to rural land use Potential adverse consequences to economic activity (e.g. manufacturing, service and construction industries) Potential adverse impacts on cultural assets and cultural landscapes Recurrence periods or probability of exceedance Recurrence periods or probability of exceedance in combination with land use Community assets affected Water level or depth Water velocity Whether floods have occurred in the past Specific weighting systems defined to assess significance Expert Judgement Other The specific needs of the of the Member States do not require an assessment under Article 4.2(d) AT BE 2 of 7 2 of 7 2 of 7 4 of 7 4 of 7 5 of 7 2 of 7 CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES 16 of 25 3 of 25 15 of 25 12 of 25 1 of 25 6 of 25 4 of 25 5 of 25 9 of 25 11 of 25 8 of 25 8 of 25 2 of 25 6 of 25 7 of 25 7 of 25 4 of 25 4 of 25 11 of 25 FI 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 7 of 8 FR 13 of 14 HR HU IE IT 15 of 47 41 of 47 41 of 47 6 of 47 45 of 47 25 of 47 25 of 47 38 of 47 1 of 47 LT LU LV MT NL PL 7 of 9 7 of 9 7 of 9 7 of 9 7 of 9 7 of 9 7 of 9 7 of 9 PT 1 of 11 10 of 11 9 of 11 9 of 11 1 of 11 1 of 11 1 of 11 RO SE SI SK Key: Criteria used in all UoMs Criteria used in some UoMs Criteria not known to have beem applied in any UoM 5.5.3.Potential adverse consequences of future floods Figure 24 shows the types of potential adverse consequences identified for future flood events in the Member States grouped by type of consequence. This shows that the expected consequences of future flooding for economic activity are slightly more pronounced than the consequences for human health, cultural heritage or the environment, with 17 Member States considering consequences for economic activity (such as manufacturing, construction, retail, services and other sources of employment) and consequences for property (such as homes and businesses) and 15 Member States considering consequences to human health, either as immediate or consequential impacts, such as might arise from pollution or interruption of services related to water supply and treatment, and including fatalities. More Member States (16) considered consequences to infrastructure (assets such as utilities, power generation, transport, storage and communication) than considered adverse consequences to the community (13 Member States), such as detrimental impacts on local governance and public administration, emergency response, education, health and social work facilities (such as hospitals). Adverse consequences to cultural heritage, which could include archaeological sites/monuments, architectural sites, museums, spiritual sites and buildings, have been considered by 14 Member States; consequences for cultural heritage have been considered to be not applicable in some UoMs in 10 Member States. Sources of potential pollution in the event of a flood, such as IPPC and Seveso installations, or point or diffuse sources have been considered by half the Member States, and adverse consequences to protected areas or waterbodies such as those designated under the Birds and Habitats Directives, bathing waters or drinking water abstraction points have been considered by 8 Member States. Consequences of future flooding for the environment have been considered to be not applicable in at least one UoM in 11 Member States. Information on this subject was not reported by 10 Member States.



Figure 25 shows the number of future flood events that have been identified as potentially resulting in adverse consequences. This shows that future floods are expected to have consequences for:

·Property (such as homes and businesses); ·Infrastructure (assets such as utilities, power generation, transport, storage and communication); ·Human health, either as immediate or consequential impacts, such as might arise from pollution or interruption of services related to water supply and treatment, and would include fatalities; ·Economic Activity (such as manufacturing, construction, retail, services and other sources of employment); and ·Community, such as detrimental impacts on local governance and public administration, emergency response, education, health and social work facilities (such as hospitals). Consequences are also expected to be seen for the environment and cultural heritage for a large number of future flood events, but the exact nature of these consequences has not been reported and/or is unknown. 5.5.4.Issues considered in the assessment of adverse consequences of future floods During the assessment of potential adverse consequences of future floods, Member States are required to take into account possible issues as specified in Article 4.2(d). Figure 26 shows the number of Member States that have considered each issue. The position of watercourses and their general hydrological and geomorphological characteristics has been considered by nearly nine out of ten Member States, and the position of populated areas by 85%. Areas of economic activity has been considered by slightly over four fifths of Member States, whilst the effectiveness of man-made infrastructures and topography have each been considered by slightly under four fifths of Member States. At the other end of the scale, long term developments appear to have been considered the least with just under half of Member States considering the development of settlements (private, public and commercial), 40% considering the development of infrastructure (transport, water, energy and telecoms) and lightly over a quarter considering rural land use change. Figure 27 shows where the results of the Commission’s assessment indicate whether there is strong evidence, some evidence, or no evidence, of the issues having been assessed. The strongest evidence has been presented for the consideration of the position of populated areas, topography, the position of watercourses and their general hydrological and geomorphological characteristics, and areas of economic activity. Evidence has been presented by nearly nine out of ten Member States for the consideration of hydrological and geomorphological characteristics (including the use of floodplains as natural retention areas) but in a half of these cases the methodology is not completely clear. Only eight Member States presented strong evidence of the consideration of long-term developments including the impact of urbanisation and climate change. Note: More than one issue may be considered. Figure 28 shows the percentage of UoMs in the Member States that have considered long term developments (settlements, infrastructure and rural developments) in the assessment of future floods in the second cycle, whilst Table 8 shows how this has changed from the first cycle. Only four Member States have considered all three types of development in all UoMs. Three more have considered the development of settlements and infrastructure in all UoMs, Ireland has considered the development of settlements and rural developments in all UoMs, whilst Belgium has considered all types of development, but infrastructure and rural developments have only been considered in some UoMs. In Finland, the development of settlements and infrastructure has been considered in all but one UoM. Croatia has considered the effect of the development of infrastructures in all UoMs, and Romania has considered the development of settlements in all UoMs. Twelve Member States did not consider the effect of long-term developments of future flood risk. Comparing the first cycle to the second cycle, eleven Member States who had applied Article 13, or had not reported in the first cycle now report that they have considered the effect of the development of settlements on future flood risk in all or some UoMs and nine Member States who had applied Article 13 or had not reported, now report that they have considered the effect of the development of infrastructure. Two Member States (Austria and Cyprus) reported in the first cycle that long term developments of settlements and infrastructure were considered in the assessment of future flood risk reported the same in the second cycle. However, Czechia, which reported considering developments of settlements and infrastructure in the first cycle, and Slovenia and Slovakia which considered developments of settlements only in the first cycle, reported that these are no longer taken into consideration. However, in the case of Slovakia, evidence was provided in the PFRA that the impact of long term developments on the incidence of flooding is taken into consideration.

In summary, the consideration of the effect of long term developments on future flood risk has improved in the second cycle, but some Member States should still consider including these factors in their assessments. Member States can also make use of the Risk and Recovery Mapping component of the Copernicus Emergency Management Service to support the assessment of potential future impacts of floods as well as risk assessments for specific areas. Note: Bulgaria did not report in time to be considered in the Commission’s assessment of Member States’ PFRAs.



MS Development of settlements Development of infrastructure First cycle Second cycle First cycle Second cycle AT BE 13.1(b) applied 13.1(b) applied In 1 of 7 UoMs BG Did not report in time for the Commission’s assessment CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES In 8 of 24 UoMs In 3 of 24 UoMs FI In 7 of 8 UoMs In 7 of 8 UoMs FR HR HU IE IT 13.1(b) applied but some preliminary work is available 13.1(b) applied but some preliminary work is available LT LU 13.1(a) applied 13.1(a) applied LV In 2 of 4 UoMs MT NL 13.1(b) applied 13.1(b) applied PL PT RO SE SI SK Note: Germany also applied Articles 13.1a and 13.1b in some UoMs in the first cycle. Key: First Cycle Second Cycle Long term trend considered Long-term trend considered in all UoMs Long term trend considered in some UoMs Long-term trend not considered Long-term trend not considered Information not reported Information not reported 5.6.PFRA aspects of special interest 5.6.1.Pluvial floods (flash floods) in urban settings As stated above, nearly seven out of every 10 flood events were reported to have the characteristics of a flash flood, and slightly under 3 out of every 10 events were characterised as other rapid onset floods. Flash floods usually happen because of extreme rainfall events occurring in a small area and might be expected to result in pluvial flooding. However, only 45% of flood events were reported as pluvial flooding. “No data” has been reported for the characteristics of slightly over a quarter of floods, and it is therefore likely that the proportion of flood events that are flash floods is understated. Predicting and managing pluvial flash floods is challenging, but it is recommended that further efforts are made in the third cycle to collect and report data on pluvial flash floods such that trends in their occurrence can be identified. 5.6.2.Inclusion/exclusion of floods from sewerage systems According to the FD, ‘flood’ means the temporary covering by water of land not normally covered by water and…may exclude floods from sewerage systems. A flood from a sewerage system is not the same as a flood related to a (combined) sewerage system. Floods from sewerage systems are not excluded from the scope of the FD, although Member States may exclude them as they might be insignificant and localised, e.g. when the basement of a single house is flooded because the non-return valve of the pipe connecting it to the sewerage network failed. This is a flood from a sewerage system. On the other hand, floods related to a (combined) sewerage system (or a stormwater system) can be significant, either because the system is outdated, under-dimensioned, not properly maintained, or overwhelmed by extraordinary rain. Floods related to (combined) sewerage systems (and stormwater systems) merit therefore consideration in conjuction to flash flooding/pluvial flooding, particularly in dense urban areas. Figure 29 shows the number of UoMs that have included and excluded flooding from sewerage systems in the PFRA. This shows that slightly over a third of UoMs from six Member States have considered flooding from sewerage systems in their risk assessments and, of those, only four Member States, Denmark, Greece, Lithuania and Romania, have included this source in the risk assessment in all UoMs. 5.6.3.Consideration of impacts of past floods and consequences of future floods on the environment and cultural heritage

In the first cycle the impact of past floods on the environment was reported for a bit over one fifth of past events and the impact on cultural heritage was reported for 15% of past events. The report noted that this was likely to be due to a lack of available data as traditionally the impact of flooding had been reported in terms of impact on human health and the economy. The potential consequences of future flooding on the environment was reported for 45% of events and on cultural heritage for a bit over one third of events. It is clear from the information presented that some consideration has been given in the second cycle to the impacts of past floods and consequences of future floods on the environment and cultural heritage. However, it would appear at first glance that it is again the economy and human health that are more at risk or that most emphasis has been placed on impacts and consequences to economic activities and human health. Figure 30 shows where the Commission’s assessment indicates that there is strong, some or no evidence of a description of the impact of past flooding on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. This shows that most Member States (nine out of every ten) presented some evidence or strong evidence of having considered the impact of past floods on human health and economic activity. For one Member States (Luxembourg) no evidence was found in the reported information of any impacts being considered (although there may have been none), whilst for one Member State (Lithuania), only economic impacts were considered and for another (Denmark) only impacts on human health were considered. Evidence of the assessment of the impact of past floods on cultural heritage was presented by three quarters of Member States; for six no evidence was found in the reported information. Similarly, evidence of the assessment of the impact of past floods on the environment was presented by nearly three quarters of Member States, while for seven no evidence was found in the reported information. It should be pointed out that, although most Member States presented at least some evidence, in most cases gaps were identified in the evidence presented. Strong evidence on the assessment of impacts of past floods was presented in by a third of Member States for all categories of impact. The data reported on the impact of past floods indicated that the impact of past floods on the environment is less of a concern or has been less well assessed. From the evidence presented, there appears to be little difference in the quality of the methodologies across the categories of impact. Figure 31 shows where the results of the Commission’s assessment indicates that there is strong, some or no evidence of an assessment of the potential adverse consequences of future flooding on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. This shows that almost all Member States presented some evidence or strong evidence of having considered the consequences of future floods on human health with only one Member State (Portugal) presented no evidence in the reported information. Strong or some evidence of the assessment of the consequences of future floods on cultural heritage and the environment was presented by slightly over nine out of ten Member States with two (Czechia and Portugal) presenting no evidence in the reported information. Evidence of the assessment of consequences on economic activity was presented by nearly nine out of ten Member States with three (Czechia, Portugal and Slovakia) presenting no evidence in the reported information. It should be noted, that in general, as was the case with methodologies for identifying future floods, the evidence for the assessment of the consequences of future floods is stronger than for the assessment of the impact of past floods. There appears to be little difference in the quality of the methodologies for the assessment of consequences of future flooding between the four different impact categories.



5.6.4.Use of expert judgement in the PFRAs In the first cycle’s assessment of Member States’ PFRAs it was noted that “Many Member States have applied expert judgement or a qualitative manner to define adverse consequences”. In the second cycle Member States have continued to use “Expert Judgement” to determine the impact of past flooding and the likely consequences of flooding in the future. In nearly all cases, expert judgement is used in conjunction with other assessment criteria. In some cases, it provides more information into the assessment that can only be obtained at a local level, for example, the approach to the assessment of past floods in Poland, or the approach taken in Sweden for the assessment of the past floods with hitherto no significant impact. In other situations, it is used to verify the results of the analysis. For example, in Romania, expert judgement is used as the final step in the process to identify significant past floods, whilst in Germany, the results of the PFRA are checked for plausibility by local experts before the APSFRs are selected. In Austria, the “preliminary risk assessment” underwent a local/regional revision and amendment, in which local circumstances, existing or new protection measures etc. were included into the assessments prior to the APSFRs being identified. On the other hand, in Croatia, expert judgement is used to identify past floods which had no impact in the past, but which may be significant in the future (application of Article 4.2(c)). Croatia also uses local knowledge for the assessment of future flood risk (application of Article 4.2(d)), which is usually carried out by specialist and local staff of the water management authorities, with the involvement of local authorities and, if necessary, other relevant local experts. There is a role for the use of expert judgement, particularly where the knowledge of the local situation can enhance the risk assessment. However, the basis for its application should be clear and transparent. 5.6.5.Risks with low probability – high impact (e.g. dam failure) Some types of flood have a very low probability of occurring, but could have high, if not catastrophic consequences should they occur. An example of such a flood would result from dam failure. Twelve Member States have clearly indicated in their reporting that they have included floods from artificial water bearing infrastructure in the PFRA, however this has a wide definition and can also include urban drainage structures. Poland carried out a detailed assessment of the possibility and consequences of flooding as a result of dam failure, leading to the designation of 26 APSFRs. France has included the risk of dam failure in the national indicators for the determination of flood risk. Romania mentioned the risk of dam failure in its assessment but mainly stated that due to the low probability of such an occurrence that the consequences of dam failure have not been considered. However, it did state that the regulations for the operation of dams and reservoirs and plans for action in the event of accidents at dams will be reviewed, taking account of the effects of climate change. Croatia has stated in its methodology that flooding from dam failure is included in the flood hazard maps but has not provided information on how the risks have been calculated. Latvia has assumed in the development of its indicators that all floods will occur gradually and that instantaneous floods such as the failure of hydroelectric dams will not occur. Finland did not indicate that it had included artificial water bearing infrastructure in the PFRA, however, it has included the potential consequences of the failure of both ice dams and reservoir dams in the assessment of future flood risk. Other types of potential catastrophic events have been considered. For example, Slovenia has included maps of areas at risk of torrential flooding in the online map viewer. In general, the main focus of the PFRAs has been on the risks of flooding that are most likely to occur, and less consideration has been given to those risks that are less likely, but which would have greater consequences should they occur. This is an area of risk assessment that should be given greater emphasis in the third cycle. 5.7.Changes in Article 4’s assessments since the previous cycle

5.7.1.Article 4.2(b) – developments since the previous cycle A general comment to make when comparing between the first and second cycle is that for some Member States certain aspects of the PFRA of the second cycle may be an update or an improvement of the first. In this case it may not have been necessary to return to some topics or to not present other at full length. Where this is the case, or were this to be the case, however, this should be explained clearly in the PFRA and proper references provided to the documents holding the full information. The EU overview document from the first cycle found that by far the most common source of reported historical flood events was fluvial (slightly above two thirds of reported events) followed by pluvial (slightly under a fifth) and sea water (17%). The least common was for artificial water bearing infrastructure and groundwater (both 1%). The most common mechanism was natural exceedance (54% of events). In general, the characteristics of flooding were less often reported for historical floods with around 15% of events having no data on this aspect. In the second cycle, the most frequent source of floods remains fluvial, but a higher proportion of floods caused by seawater has been reported than pluvial flooding. Both however seem to have risen in importance or given more attention compared to the first cycle. The proportion of floods for which the mechanisms and characteristics are not known remains high. This points towards increasing the effort of recording information around flood events in order to prepare better responses in the future. The EU overview document from the first cycle found that six Member States had excluded flooding from sewerage systems. It was not clear whether the other Member States had excluded this source or not. In the second cycle, two Member States stated that they had included flooding from sewerage systems in the PFRA in some UoMs (Belgium and Italy) and four Member States (Denmark, Greece, Lithuania and Romania) included this source in the assessment in all UoMs. In the first cycle, the level of detail in information provided by the Member States on the methodology and criteria used to define significant past floods was variable. Furthermore, a number of Member States applied Article 13 (and therefore did not report on this aspect) which does not apply to the second cycle. In the second cycle, all Member States provided some information on how past floods have been assessed and the criteria used for defining significance. In some Member States detailed information on how the criteria and methodologies have been applied are lacking, but in others the methodology is clear and detailed. In addition, “expert judgement” has been relied upon to a lesser extent, mainly being used to verify the results of analysis on the basis of local knowledge. An assessment of the information reported on the impact of past floods was not included in the first cycle EU overview report. In this respect, the information provided in the second cycle marks an improvement. However, in the second cycle, the quality of information on the impact of past floods is variable, with some Member States only providing a qualitative assessment, while others providing more detailed quantitative data. In some cases more detailed information was available in supporting documents than was reported directly to the EIONET CDR. In the first cycle EU overview report it was found that “not applicable” was identified for cultural heritage for 72% of past flood events, for environment for 59% of events, for human health for 45% of events and for economic impacts for 16%. At face value it appears that the proportion of past events where impacts on cultural heritage, the environment and human health were not applicable has increased in the second cycle, which implies that the recorded impact of flood events is reducing to these receptors. In terms of impacts on the economy, a higher proportion of events appear to have impacted on infrastructure than in the first cycle (47% vs. ~30%) but it should be noted that the first cycle analysis did not include information from all Member States. 5.7.2.Article 4.2(d) -developments since the previous cycle The EU overview document for the first cycle concluded that the Member States’ approaches and methodologies for the assessment of the consequences of future floods are very diverse. Several Member States reported that there was a lack of data and, consequently, it was difficult to make a detailed assessment of potential adverse consequences of future floods. Some Member States were not clear on what criteria were used to define potential adverse consequences. It was not clear whether they had not applied criteria, or if they had not reported the application of criteria to the Commission. In the second cycle all Member States have presented some level of evidence of a methodology being in place for the assessment of future floods and some have developed detailed methodologies for identifying future flood risk. In the first cycle the assessment of the potential consequences of future floods focussed on consequences for the economy and human health. In the second cycle there seems to have been a more complete assessment of the consequences of future floods (compared to historic floods) in that proportionally fewer events were reported to have “not applicable” consequences for all four aggregated categories (economy, human health, environment and cultural heritage). This may be the case since for the second cycle historic floods have taken place more recently and also Member States may have been better prepared to record or anticipate their consequences. 5.7.3.Changes to the methodologies of Articles 4.2(b), 2(c) and 4.2(c) since the previous cycle Figure 32 summarises the changes made to methodologies for the preparation of the PFRA by Member States. The changes made by each Member States are shown in Table 9. These clearly shows that a significant number of Member States have made changes to the methodologies for the identification of future floods, with two Member States (Latvia and Malta) adopting a completely new methodology for the application of Article 4.2(d). Nine other Member States have improved their methodologies for the application of Article 4.2(d). Fewer Member States have made changes to the methodologies used for the assessment of past floods. Table 10 shows changes made to the criteria for identifying significant past and future floods between the first and second cycle. Note: Bulgaria did not report in time to be included in the Commission’s assessment.

MS Article 4.2(b) Article 4.2(c) Article 4.2(d) AT BE BG Did not report in time for the Commission’s assessment CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK Key:

New methodology Improvement in methodology Small change in methodology No change Insufficient information reported Article 13.1 applied in first cycle



MS Criteria for identifying significant past floods Criteria for identifying significant future floods AT BE BG Did not report for the Commission’s assessment CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK Key: Change in criteria No change No information Article 13.1 applied in first cycle 5.7.4.Distinction between Articles 4.2(b) and 4.2(c) or 4.2(c) and 4.2(d) As discussed in earlier sections, in many cases strong evidence of methodologies that made a clear distinction between Articles 4.2(b) and 4.2(c) and Articles 4.2(c) and 4.2(d) could not be identified. Indeed, only six Member States provided clear evidence of a specific methodology for Article 4.2(c). Some Member States appear to have considered floods with no impact under Article 4.2(b). For example, Spain and Portugal reported identical criteria for Articles 4.2(b) and 4.2(c) but provided no distinct methodology. Some Member States included the assessment of past floods with no impact into the assessment for future floods (Article 4.2(d)). For example, Finland considered past floods with no impact in their assessment of future floods and applied the same criteria. Other Member States, such as Luxembourg, applied only one methodology to the assessment of both past and future floods. Estonia, mentioned the consideration of areas that had flooded in the past, but where the impact was not significant, in the section of the PFRA on the selection of APSFRs, but did not elaborate a detailed methodology. Similarly, Hungary mentioned that such floods should be considered in light of current circumstances but did not state how this should be achieved. Lithuania did not consider that the consequences of floods in the future would change from what had occurred in the past. Nine Member States presented no evidence in their reporting of having given a consideration to past floods with no significant impact or whether they may occur again in the future. Although the FD is not prescriptive on how the assessment of past floods without a significant impact should be considered, Member States should consider having a methodology in place to assess whether such floods may re-occur and if so, what their impact may be due to altered socioeconomic circumstances or climate change. 6.Implementation of Article 5 - APSFRs 6.1.Methodologies and criteria used for the selection of APSFRs Article 5 of the Directive requires Member States to use their PFRA analyses to identify areas for which they conclude that potential significant flood risk exists or might exist in the future for each river basin district, each UoM or portion of international UoM that lies within their territory. Of all the past and future floods analysed during the PFRA phase only the floods deemed of significance for the present and the future are retained as APSFRs. All Member States provided information on the methodology used for the selection of APSFRs, and these were assessed to determine the level of detail included with the methodologies. To better appreciate the granularity of the methodologies, an assessment of whether the Member States’ methodologies included criteria to distinguish between present day/future floods and significant present day/future floods was made for each Member State. Figure 33 summarises the results of these assessments. This shows that half the Member States presented some or strong evidence of having made this distinction. The other half presented either no evidence, or evidence to the contrary.

Member States have adopted different criteria to define significant floods, examples of the criteria used include: ·defining of areas with significant flood risk included areas where the consequences of flooding are in an order of magnitude that will be of national relevance (Denmark), ·those areas characterized by a large number of individual damage sites (Finland), ·or the number of affected inhabitants, victims, risk perception, economic damage SEVESO sites, nature and ecology (in hectares), vital infrastructure and drinking water, cultural sites (the Netherlands). To appreciate whether Member States differentiate between significant risk presently in an APSFR as opposed to significant future risk (due to the conditions influencing the risk having evolved-long term developments) an assessment of whether criteria to distinguish between significant flood risk existing presently in an APSFR are in place and whether criteria to distinguish between significant flood risk likely to arise in the future in an APSFR was made for each Member States. The results are shown in Figure 34. This shows that nearly half of the Member States presented strong evidence of criteria being in place to distinguish between significant flood risk existing presently in an APSFR, and slightly over a quarter of the Member States presented some evidence. However, almost three out of 10 (seven Member States) presented no evidence of such criteria being in place. Slightly less than one in five Member States presented strong evidence of criteria being in place to distinguish between significant flood risk likely to arise in the future in an APSFR. However, a further 12 presented some evidence that criteria were in place but it was not clear from the documents provided how the criteria have either been derived, or how they are applied. Nine, or slightly over a third of Member States, provided no evidence of criteria being in place. As part of their methodology for the designation of APSFRs, Member States should specify the criteria used for the determination of present or future significant flood risk as part of their approach to designating APSFRs. Figure 35 shows the criteria used for the determination of significant flood risk in the selection of APSFRs and the number of UoMs that have used them. The number of permanent residents affected by the flood event has been used by slightly over four fifths of the UoMs, adverse consequences to economic activity has been used by slightly under four fifths of the UoMs and adverse consequences to infrastructure assets has been used in slightly over seven out of 10 UoMs. Adverse impacts on cultural assets and cultural landscapes was also used by 70% of UoMs. Figure 36 shows the criterion used by UoMs for the selection of an area for inclusion in an APSFR. This shows that magnitude of risk to human health (slightly over three quarters of UoMs) magnitude of risk to economic activity (slightly under three quarters of UoMs), magnitude of risk to the environment (slightly under two thirds of UoMs) and magnitude of risk to cultural heritage (also slightly under two thirds of UoMs) were the most used criteria. Most Member States used more than one criteria as shown in Figure 37, although not all criteria were used in all UoMs. For example, 16 criteria were used by UoMs in Italy, but only four criteria were used by all the UoMs for which information was provided. Similarly in Spain, 16 criteria were used but none were used by all UoMs and some (in agreement with neighbouring countries and high level of damage expected) were only used by one UoM. Two Member States used only one criterion. Estonia used exceedance of thresholds under specific weighting systems defined to assess significance and Lithuania reported that they used expert judgement. Several Member States provided detailed information on the methodology used for the selection of APSFRs. For example, in the Po river basin in Italy reference was made to a specific document laying out the methodology in detail including a flow chart summarising the process that was undertaken and formulae for the calculation of the criteria used in the selection. Austria identified criteria and thresholds for the selection of APSFRs. In Hungary, it is considered that “there is no difference between significant flood risk and the acceptable level of flood risk” and therefore, all areas covered by a 1:1000 year flood were identified as an APSFR regardless of the potential consequences of the flooding. An assessment of the evidence of the criteria described above being considered was made for each Member State, and the results are shown in Figure 38. This shows that almost two thirds of Member States provided strong evidence of criteria being in place, whilst the remaining Member States provided some evidence of criteria but in many cases detailed information on how they had been derived and/or applied was lacking. 6.2.APSFR selection– developments since the previous cycle The first cycle EU overview document found that some Member States gave detailed descriptions of their method including a number of steps whilst others mentioned criteria but did not indicate which methods were used to identify APSFRs. Some Member States did not provide any information at all on the criteria used. The guidance for reporting to the EIONET CDR has changed between the first and second cycle, and the Member States now report more information so a more complete overview of the situation in the Member States can be provided. All Member States have developed criteria for the identification of areas as an APSFR, although the evidence for how these have been derived and/or applied could be strengthened in some cases. Evidence for the criteria used for the determination of present or future significant flood risk as part of the approach to designating APSFRs is not clear in many cases, this appears to be similar to the first cycle.

Note: More than one criteria may be applied. Note: More than one criteria may be applied. 6.3.Number of APSFRS and changes to APSFRs since the previous reporting A total of 14 374 APSFRs have been reported, 274 of which are transboundary. The number of APSFRs identified by each Member States is shown in Figure 39 (total APSFRs in parenthesis). In the first cycle a total of 4 549 APSFRs were reported, with four Member States applying Article 13.1(b) (Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal) and one Member State (Malta) reporting no APSFRs. In the second cycle Italy and Croatia together have identified over half of the APSFRs in the EU. Member States were asked to report how the APSFRs changed between the first and second cycles; this information is shown in Figure 40 Italy and Lithuania did not report data explaining the changes. Figure 41 shows the changes in APSFRs since first cycle for EU totals. This shows that at an EU level, 4 808 APSFRs have not changed, 2 956 have been created, and 918 have been deleted. The code of 602 APSFRs has changed, but no change has been made to the geographic area covered. One likely explanation of the relatively high number of changes amongst APSFRs is that the identification of APSFRs is a process that has not settled (and will never entirely due to the changing nature of the risk). This ought not be considered as unusual since this is just the first update of APSFRs (APSFRs under the FD were first identified in 2011). Notes: - ‘Change’ refers to a slight modification, for example a minor adjustment to the geometry or resolution of an existing APSFR that does not fit under any of the other categories. - Italy and Lithuania did not report data explaining the changes.

Note: ‘Change’ refers to a slight modification, for example a minor adjustment to the geometry or resolution of an existing APSFR that does not fit under any of the other categories. 6.4.Sources, mechanisms and characteristics of floods in ASPFRs Data on the sources, mechanisms and characteristics of floods within the APSFRs are shown in Figure 42,