EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 65 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Estonia Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of contents Acronyms Introduction Overview Overview of the assessment Good Practices Areas for further development Recommendations 1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1 Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 2.2 Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs 2.3 Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 2.4 Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps 2.5 Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information 3. Setting of Objectives 3.2 Specific and measurable objectives 4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 4.1 Cost of measures

4.2 Funding of measures 4.3 Measurable and specific (including location) measures 4.4 Measures and objectives 4.5 Geographic coverage/scale of measures 4.6 Prioritisation of measures 4.7 Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 4.8 Progress of implementation of measures 4.9 Measures taken under other Community Acts 4.10 Specific groups of measures 4.11 Recovery from and resilience to flooding 4.12 Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 4.13 Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 4.14 Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures 5. Consideration of climate change 5.1 Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change 6. Cost-benefit analysis 6.1 Good practices and areas for further development 7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation 7.1 Competent authorities 7.2 Public information and consultation

7.3 Active involvement of Stakeholders 7.4 Effects of consultation 7.5 Strategic Environmental Assessment 7.6 Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures Background & method Types of measures used in reporting List of tables & figures Measures overview Measure details: cost Measure details: name & location Measure details: objectives Measure details: authorities Measure details: progress Measure details: other Annex A2: Estonia’s structure of measure groups, measures and actions Annex B: Definitions of measure types Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)

Acronyms APSFR Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis EEA European Environment Agency FD Floods Directive FHRM Flood Hazard and Risk Map FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NWRM Natural Water Retention Measures PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments PoM Programme of Measures RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment UoM Unit of Management WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe Introduction The Floods Directive (FD) (2007/60/EC) requires each Member State to assess its territory for significant risk from flooding, to map the flood extent, identify the potential adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity in these areas, and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this flood risk. By the end of 2011, Member States were to prepare Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) to identify the river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding (Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk – APSFRs). By the end of 2013, Flood Hazard & Risk Maps (FHRMs) were to be drawn up for such areas. On this basis, Member States were to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by the end of 2015. This version of the report assesses the FRMPs for Estonia. Its structure follows a common assessment template used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources: ·Member State reporting to the European Commission on the FRMPs as per Articles 7 and 15 of the FD: this reporting provides an overview of the plans and details on their measures. ·The FRMPs: Estonia has three Units of Management (UoMs) and it reported a FRMP for each UoM. All three FRMPs are covered in this assessment. In addition to the FRMPs, Estonia has published an Action Plan for 2016-2021: this was also covered in the assessment.



Overview Figure 1 Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts International River Basin Districts (within European Union) International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) as presented in the 2012 RBMP assessment reports Estonia is divided into three Units of Management (UoMs), which correspond to the River Basin Districts (RBDs) under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). There is one FRMP for each UoM – West-Estonian (EE1), East-Estonian (EE2) and Koiva (EE3). The FRMPs are managed at national level, as are the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) under the WFD. As a result, the three FRMPs have similar structures and content. An FRMP has been developed for the Koiva UoM (EE3), even though no APSFRs have been identified. In the Koiva UoM (based on information obtained from the FRMP itself), the aim is to avoid and minimise risks from potential floods, and the main focus is on measures for sustaining and improving the natural water retention capacities of the landscape. In addition to the FRMPs, an Action Plan for 2016-2021 has been prepared and published, containing more detailed information about measures. The Action Plan is presented as an annex in all the FRMPs, is cited in the text of the FRMPs, and is published on the internet alongside the FRMPs.

The FRMPs and the Action Plan were approved by the government on 7 January 2016. The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in Estonia, including the UoM code, the name, and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if all documents required for each UoM were submitted to European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE – the FRMP as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML. Table 1 Overview of UoMs in Estonia UoM Name Number of APSFRs XML reported PDF Reported EE1 WEST-ESTONIAN 15 Yes Yes EE2 EAST-ESTONIAN 5 Yes Yes EE3 KOIVA 0 Yes Yes TOTAL 20 The FRMPs and the Action Plan are available from the following web page: · http://www.envir.ee/et/uleujutused



Overview of the assessment The table below gives an overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs. The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: ·Evidence to the contrary: An explicit statement was found stating that the criterion was not met; ·No evidence: No information found to indicate that the criterion was met; ·Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication of the approach used for the criterion. Depending on the comment in the adjacent column, “some evidence” could also be construed as “weak evidence”; ·Strong evidence: Clear information provided, describing an approach followed in the FRMP to address the criterion. Criterion Evidence Comments FRM objectives have been established Strong evidence The three FRMPs all set out objectives. The FRMPs for the West-Estonian and East-Estonian UoMs (EE1 and EE2) set two general objectives: to protect existing sites from flooding and to ban, or restrict, new buildings in flood risk areas. These two FRMPs, which contain APSFRs, as well as the FRMP for Koiva (EE3), which does not, set out further objectives. FRM objectives relate to... ...the reduction of potential adverse consequences Strong evidence The first objective, as noted above, is to protect existing sites from flood. It is moreover stated in the FRMPs that the objectives have been developed in order to reduce or avoid the impacts of flooding on human health, natural environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. ...to the reduction of the likelihood of flooding Strong evidence Among the more specific objectives, the FRMPs call for preventing flooding by reducing flood risk areas and preventing building in flood risk areas. ...to non-structural initiatives Strong evidence As noted above, one of the general objectives for EE1 and EE2 is to restrict construction in flood risk areas. One of the specific objectives is to ensure preparedness for flooding. FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to... ...human health Strong evidence While human health is not specifically identified in the objectives, the FRMPs underline that the objectives have been developed in order to reduce or avoid the impacts of flooding on human health, natural environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. ...economic activity Strong evidence See above under ‘human health’ ...environment Strong evidence See above under ‘human health’ ...cultural heritage Strong evidence See above under ‘human health’ Measures have been... ...identified Strong evidence Estonia’s FRMPs and Action Plan present a three-level system with 12 “measure groups” (defined and listed in the FRMPs and in the associated Action Plan), which in turn consist of 24 measures and 110 actions. Estonia, however, has only reported on the second level, the measures. ...prioritised Some evidence Estonia has reported priorities for its measures (the second level of its three-part structure). The Action Plan moreover identifies APSFR-specific priorities for the majority of the 110 actions. The FRMPs provide information on the method for prioritisation of the actions: legally required actions are assigned high priority; for non-technical measures, higher priority is given to those that are related to protection of human life and health, in particular in densely populated areas, and to studies; for construction actions, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is used. Relevant aspects of Article 7 have been taken into account such as... ...costs & benefits Some evidence The three FRMPs refer to CBA as a criterion for the establishment of priorities for the selection of actions, in particular for construction actions. Neither the methodology nor actual cost-benefit results, however, are presented in the FRMPs or the Action Plan. ...flood extent Strong evidence Both FHRMs and FRMPs provide information about probability scenarios of flooding events and also about the extent of floods accompanied with water depth estimates and indicate that this information was used in the development of measures. ...flood conveyance No evidence There is no evidence in the FRMPs whether flood conveyance routes have been taken into account or not. The PFRA report states that conveyance is not relevant for Estonia, as most floods in Estonia are slow fluvial floods, and consequently conveyance routes have not been described in the PFRA and FRMPs, and they have not been taken into account when planning the measures. ...water retention Strong evidence Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRMs) are included in the Action Plan and include actions in urban areas, such as green roofs and wetlands; in agricultural and forest lands. ...environmental objectives of the WFD Some evidence The FRMPs do not make a clear reference to the environmental objectives of the WFD (Article 4). Nevertheless, the Action Plan indicates whether each action is neutral, supporting or in conflict with Estonia’s RBMPs. ...spatial planning/land use Strong evidence In Estonia’s FRMPs, the first measure “block” sets out actions for "Limiting the establishment and construction of new objects in flood risk areas". This measure block includes actions for 1) spatial planning to take into consideration flood risks, 2) defining non-construction areas, and 3) initiating assessments for evaluation of flood risk prior to building or reconstruction of various installations. ...nature conservation Some evidence All three FRMPs contain a brief note that they take into account nature protection aspects. The Action Plan refers to biodiversity and indicates for all actions, whether they reduce flood-related risks to habitats (i.e. potential significant negative impacts on Natura 2000 areas) or protected species (potential reduction in area of habitats of protected species). ...navigation/port infrastructure Some evidence All three FRMPs make a brief reference that they take into consideration navigation and port infrastructure. One action addresses pollution risks from ports in flood events. ...likely impact of climate change Strong evidence The FRMPs provide a chapter dedicated to climate change and how its impact is taken into account in planning the measures and actions. Measures are assessed for their sensitivity to climate change. The FRMPs, however, do not describe in detail the expected impacts of climate change on flooding events in Estonia and provide only a broad overview of shifts in importance of different flood sources. Moreover, climate change was not considered in the PFRA or the FHRMs. Coordination with other countries ensured in the RBD/UoM No evidence Although Estonia shares UoMs with neighbouring Latvia and Russia, the FRMPs do not describe coordination with Latvia or Russia on flood risk management. The FRMPs note that no flood risk areas are shared with neighbouring countries. Coordination ensured with WFD Some evidence As noted above, all actions have been assessed in terms of their compatibility with the RBMPs. The FRMPs do not explicitly explain, however, whether WFD objectives have been taken into account during the development of FRMP measures and actions. Active involvement of interested parties Strong evidence Estonia organised 25 public meetings and workshops on the FRMPs, and also prepared an online survey whose results provided input to the FRMPs. Good Practices The assessment identified the following good practices in the Estonian FRMPs. Table 3 Good practices in the Estonian FRMPs

Topic area Good practices identified Planning/implementing of measures and their prioritization for the achievement of objectives. The Action Plan provides details on measures and actions: their location and responsible authorities and, for some, information on costs and deadlines. Many of the actions are specific and measurable. Most actions have been prioritised at the level of UoMs and APSFRs. The methodology for prioritisation has been described in the FRMPs. The FRMPs and the Action Plan include measures and actions for sustainable land-use and NWRMs. An FRMP has been developed for the Koiva UoM (EE3), even though no APSFRs have been identified: its aim is to avoid and minimise risks from future floods and the main focus is on measures for sustaining and improving the natural water retention abilities of the landscape. A measure for preventing post-flood pollution has been proposed. The Action Plan assesses each action for its compatibility with the RBMP. Consideration of climate change in the FRMPs. Climate change was addressed in the development of the FRMPs and the Action Plan: most importantly, the sensitivity of all actions to potential climate change was assessed. The methodology for this assessment is presented in the FRMPs. Use of CBA in the FRMPs. Cost benefit analysis is identified as a criterion for the prioritisation of construction actions, including NWRMs. Public participation. Several mechanisms have been used for involving stakeholders. In total 25 workshops were held to present the FRMPs and gather feedback from stakeholders and the public. A survey was held to gather information on public awareness. A range of national and local government bodies provided input. Consultations on policy activities related to flood risk management, such as marine strategy and land management, were used to raise awareness and gather input on the FRMPs. Flood risk governance. The preparation of the FRMPs was coordinated with the preparation of the second RBMPs under the WFD via consultation with the Commission for River Basin Management on measures and actions (the Commission brings together government bodies, national experts and water service companies for coordination on the implementation of the WFD and RBMPs). Moreover, the Ministry of Environment was the lead competent authority for both documents. Coordination with local and national authorities took place as part of the development of the FRMPs. Areas for further development The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the Estonian FRMPs. Table 4 Areas for further development in the Estonian FRMPs Topic area Areas for further development identified Integration of previously reported information in the FRMPs. The FRMPs lack a detailed description of how the APSFRs and FHRMs have been used to prioritise objectives and/or measures. FHRMs have not been prepared for two of Estonia’s 20 APSFRs. In cases of floods from multiple sources, the FRMPs do not indicate clearly how different flood sources have been considered and how their respective contributions to flood risk have been distinguished. Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk. The objectives are broad and are neither specific nor measurable. Planning/implementation of measures and their prioritisation for the achievement of objectives. While some budget information is provided, it has not been broken down per UoM. Budget information has not been provided for construction measures. Since the objectives are not specific or measurable, it is not clear how and by how much the measures and their actions will contribute to their achievement. There are no indicators or baselines for determining progress. No indicators for evaluating the impact and progress of measures and actions are described, and no baseline is established. There is no description in the FRMPs or Action Plans how the progress and impact of the measures and actions will be monitored Use of CBA in the FRMPs. The FRMPs do not describe the methodology for CBA, nor present the results. The work on CBA may not be complete, as the FRMPs call for additional and more detailed analysis. Public participation. The FRMPs do not provide information on the specific comments and inputs received during consultation, nor on changes made in response to inputs from stakeholders or the public. Flood risk governance. The FRMPs are quite similar in content and do not describe in detail differences in flood risks across the UoMs and how such differences have influenced the programming of measures and actions. It appears that Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) were not carried out for the FRMPs. Recommendations Based on the reported information and the FRMPs, the following recommendations are made to enhance flood risk management (not listed in any particular order): ·To be able to assess progress, objectives should be specific and measurable to the extent possible and the FRMPs should describe the process for setting objectives. ·FRMPs should provide more detailed information on measure costs in each UoM. Developing indicators to measure progress in the implementation should be considered. ·The FRMPs should provide more UoM-specific information. Differences among the UoMs do not come out from the documents (except in case of EE3) – for example, how conditions in each UoM have influenced the selection of measures. ·The FRMPs should describe the methodology used for CBA and present the results. ·More detailed information should be provided on how the public and stakeholders were actively involved and how their inputs were considered. ·SEAs should be considered for Estonia’s FRMPs. · 1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1 Reporting of the FRMPs Estonia has reported three FRMPs, one for each of its three UoMs. It also submitted an accompanying document – an Action Plan – which provides information about the measures and actions planned across all three FRMPs. The Action Plan is presented as an annex in all the FRMPs, is referred to in the text of the FRMPs and published online alongside the FRMPs. Estonia did not make use of Article 13(3), which allowed Member States to use flood risk management plans finalised before December 2010 for the first cycle of the FD. 1.2 Assessment of the FRMPs

The assessment covered all three Estonian FRMPs: Table 5 UoMs in Estonian FRMPs UoM code UoM Name EE1 West-Estonian EE2 East-Estonian EE3 Koiva In addition, Estonia’s Action Plan has been taken into consideration in the assessment.

2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1 Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment The conclusions of the PFRA are presented in all three FRMPs, including in the FRMP for the Koiva UoM (EE3), despite the fact that no APSFRs had been identified there. All three FRMPs provide a textual description, including of the methodology employed in the previous steps and their results. The two FRMPs for UoMs where APSFRs were identified (EE1 and EE2) had a summary map showing these areas, including tables listing the APSFRs. Although two RBDs/UoMs (EE2 and EE3) are shared with neighbouring Member States, there are no international flood risk areas identified in these UoMs. The PFRA considered floods from fluvial, pluvial, groundwater and seawater sources and floods from artificial water-bearing infrastructure. The PFRA also considered other flood sources, mainly wind-related flooding on large lakes. The FRMPs do not indicate clearly, however, how different flood sources might act in combination and, in such cases, their respective contributions to flood risk have not been distinguished in the APSFRs. Links to maps of the APSFRs have been provided as URLs in the FRMPs for EE1 and EE2: the FRMPs provide a link to the page of the Ministry of the Environment, which provides maps of the APSFRs and the FHRMs. Conveyance routes have been acknowledged in the FRMPs as part of PFRA requirements under the Floods Directive but were not taken into account. There are no further details in the FRMPs: instead, the PFRA report explains that information on flood conveyance routes is important in case of sudden rise of water level or water flows, where this information can be used to designate a vulnerable area. This is not the case for major floods in Estonia, which are mostly related to fluvial and seawater floods. Due to the local conditions, conveyance routes are clear and stable and the changes in water level take place slowly. Floodwater movements in major flood areas in Estonia have not been sudden and abrupt, both rising and receding along river courses. 2.1.1 Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs Although two RBDs/UoMs (EE2, East Estonian, and EE3, Koiva) are shared with neighbouring Member States, no international flood risk areas identified and assigned for the FRMPs. The FRMPs do not indicate if the identification of flood risk areas was coordinated with neighbouring Member States. 2.1.2 Information how the PFRA was used in development the FHR maps All three FRMPs explain that the FHR maps were prepared for flood risk areas (APSFRs) assigned previously in the PFRA, which assessed the identified areas with more detail. However, further details are not provided. 2.2 Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs FHRMs were prepared for 18 areas located in the EE1 (West-Estonian) and EE2 (East-Estonian) UoMs, compared to the initially designated 20 APSFRs. Two flood risk areas, one in EE1 and one in EE2 have not yet been mapped for flood hazard and flood risk because of uncertainties in the determination of flood extents and probabilities. FHRMs have not been provided in any of the FRMPs. Instead links to maps have been provided in all three FRMPs (even in the EE3 FRMP, although no APSFRs were designated there). Specifically, the FRMPs provide the link (URL) of the Ministry of the Environment, which leads to direct links of the FHRMs (the maps are visible on the GIS application operated by the Estonian Land Board). The link to the location of the FHRMs provided in all of the FRMPs is:

· http://www.envir.ee/et/uleujutusohupiirkonna-ja-uleujutusohuga-seotud-riskipiirkonna-kaardid



2.2.1 Maps for shared flood risk areas As no cross-border flood risk areas were identified, cross-border FHRMs were not prepared for any of Estonia’s UoMs. 2.2.2 Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps In all the FRMPs, the FHRMs have been used to develop the FRMPs. Based on the reporting sheets and the FRMPs: ·FHRMs have been used to set priorities for flood risk management (e.g. locations, economic activities, assets). ·FHRMs have been used as a tool in the public participation process. ·Specific objectives on flood risk reduction have been defined based on the FHRM. ·Measures have been defined based on the FHRM. Details on how the FHRMs were used to develop FRMPs are rather limited, general and scattered in the reporting sheets and the FRMPs. In general, all FRMPs refer in a standard text to the development of the FRMPs and its measures on the basis of FHRMs. For example: the development of the measures in the EE1 FRMP was based on the FHRMs, and the flood hazard maps were based on flood probability scenarios. Flood risk maps describe potential adverse effects (associated with population, economic activities, wastewater treatment plants etc.) together with these scenarios. In addition, the FRMPs and the reporting sheets mention that interested parties and the public were involved in the preparation of the FHRMs. Specific objectives on flood risk reduction have been set based on the pre-defined risk factors in major flood risk areas with the help of the FHRMs. 2.3 Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas The FRMP assessment looked for information on changes in the identification of APSFRs since December 2011 or in the FHRMs since December 2013 indicated in the FRMP: no information concerning changes was found in the FRMPs. 2.4 Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps The FHRM assessment identified the following areas for further development for Estonia: ·For two areas, Järvakandi and Kohtla Järve, maps were not reported. ·It seems that Estonia only reported population at risk for low probability fluvial floods. ·It seems that there were no potentially affected protected areas in the UoMs, apart from public beaches and Natura 2000 sites. ·Climate change was not included in the analysis. None of these areas for further development are explicitly addressed in the time period between publication of the FHRMs and the publication of the FRMPs, according to the FRMPs and the reporting sheets. Nonetheless, the following information has been found:

·FHRMs have not yet been prepared for the two missing APSFRs, Järvakandi and Kohtla Järve, due to ongoing uncertainties in the determination of flood extents and probabilities. ·The FHRMs now include information on population at risk for four probabilities of floods, including 10-year and 50-year floods. ·Concerning potentially affected protected areas in the UoMs apart from public beaches and Natura 2000 sites, the FRMPs clarify that the FHRMs also show cultural heritage monuments and other sensitive objects (kindergartens, schools, hospitals, local government buildings, libraries, police stations, rescue stations). ·The FHRMs have not been updated to consider climate change, and it is indicated that they will do so for the next cycle.



2.5 Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information The following areas for further development were identified: ·The FRMPs lack a detailed description of how the APSFRs and the FHRMs have been used to prioritise objectives and/or measures. FHRMs have not yet been prepared for two of Estonia’s 20 APSFRs (Järvakandi and Kohtla Järve). ·FHRMs are not provided in the body of the FRMPs or as annexes for illustration and completeness, though the plans contain internet links to the maps. In cases of floods from multiple sources, the FRMPs do not indicate clearly how different flood sources and their respective contributions to flood risk have been accounted for.

3. Setting of Objectives 3.1 Focus of objectives The FRMPs for EE1 and EE2 both set out two general objectives: 1.Protect existing sites from flooding; 2.Ban or restrict construction of new buildings based on the nature of the site. Since there is no APSFRs identified in EE3, the corresponding FRMP has set out only one general objective: prevent the emergence of any significant flood risk areas. All three FRMPs contain further objectives, which are linked to measures and expected results. This list, the same in all three FRMPs, has been divided into three groups: 1.Prevention: Prevent the emergence of new flood risk areas (reducing the likelihood of flood risk while taking into account potential climate change projections). 2.Prevention/avoidance: a) Prevent flooding (reducing flood risks in risk areas and thereby the impact of flooding on human health, the natural environment, cultural heritage and economic activity);

b) Protect against flooding and control flooding (reducing impacts of flooding via technical measures in buildings and areas in order to protect human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity). 3.Preparedness: Ensure preparedness for flooding (preparing mitigating and preventative measures, including shaping behavioural habits to raise awareness and ensuring technical readiness for temporary protection measures). The FRMPs for EE1 and EE2 go on to emphasise the importance of specific sites when setting targets and determining activities related to the objectives. The FRMPs state that attention should be paid to sites that may pose significant threat to human life and health, property and/or the natural environment as a result of flooding. Elaboration of rules for construction planning and implementation in flood risk areas should be considered to prevent risks. Even though the flood risk management objectives defined in Estonia are rather general, it can be concluded that in the FRMPs: ·The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods. ·The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding. ·The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented. ·The objectives refer to non-structural measures. 3.2 Specific and measurable objectives In Estonia, the objectives are neither specific nor measurable. Neither the general nor the specific objectives for the FRMPs are specific in terms of what they are trying to achieve, where they are to be achieved, or when they are expected to be achieved. While in the FRMPs indicators are provided, they are associated to the measures rather than to the objectives. 3.3 Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods The three FRMPs state that objectives are there to reduce or protect against the impact of flooding on human health, the natural environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. 3.4 Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding The objectives include the reduction of likelihood of flooding in flood risk areas (as well as prohibiting the creation of new risk areas). 3.5 Process for setting the objectives The FRMPs do not clearly outline how the objectives were set. While the FRMPs refer to coordination among government authorities (see section 7), it is not stated if this included the definition of objectives. Nor is information provided if the consultation of private stakeholders or the public encompassed the objectives.



3.6 Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives

The following good practice was identified: ·An FRMP was prepared for the Koiva UoM (EE3) despite the fact no APSFRs were identified in this UoM: its aim is to avoid and minimise risks from future floods and the main focus is on measures for sustaining and improving the natural water retention abilities of the landscape. The following areas for further development were identified: ·The objectives are very broad and are neither specific nor measurable. ·Little information is provided in the FRMPs on the process for setting objectives.



4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives In its reporting sheets, Estonia reported 70 aggregated measures and no individual measures. The number of measures per UoM is ranging from 22 (in EE3) to 24 (in EE1 and EE2). All three UoMs contain measures covering the four aspects: protection; prevention; preparedness; recovery and review. The majority of the measures are prevention measures (44 measures or around 63% of all measures reported in Estonia) followed by preparedness (20 measures, around 29% of the total). There are three protection and three recovery and review measures, one of each per UoM (each around 4% each of the total): all the protection measures are listed as measure type M31, natural flood management; all the recovery and review measures are listed as type M53, other recovery. Please see Tables A1 and A2 and Figures A1 and A2 in Annex A for further detail on the information provided in Estonia’s reporting sheets. The data and numbers provided in the reporting sheets do not provide all the information on measures given in the FRMPs and the Action Plan. The latter documents describe a national approach for defining and structuring measures, organised on three levels: ·At the first level, there are 12 “measure blocks” or “groups” (Meetmeplokid in Estonian) that serve a common target. ·Under these measure groups, 24 measures have been identified: Estonia’s reporting sheets provide information at this, second level. ·Under the measures, Estonia’s Action Plan identifies 110 actions, each a concrete, specific activity. Please see Annex A2 for a more detailed overview of this structure. 4.1 Cost of measures Table 6 Estimated overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMPs Estimated budget for measures/actions (2015-2021) in EUR

(construction actions not included) All UoMs EUR 289 610 Source: FRMPs In the each of the three FRMPs, only the total national budget for implementation of the non-construction measures in Estonia is provided: the total cost of the planned measures is EUR 289 610 over a period of 6 years (construction actions are not included). There are no separate budgets for UoMs or APSFRs. In its reporting sheets, Estonia provides cost estimates for 40 of its 70 measures (57 %): these costs – which refer to the second level of measures – vary between EUR 3 000 and EUR 69 000, with the majority of the measures being in the range EUR 20 000 - 50 000. The costs appear to be evenly distributed across measure aspects and UoMs (for more details see Tables A3 and A4 in Annex A).

The Action Plan provides further detail, specifying cost estimates for 78 % of the actions (the third level of the measure hierarchy). For the remaining 22 % of the actions, costs are listed as unknown or zero (of these 22 %, for approximately 40 % the cost is listed as zero – most of these are administrative actions that are being already implemented and already taken into account in the budgets of the state, local governments or other responsible authority). The highest cost of an action has been identified at approximately EUR 28 000. The FRMPs describe the methodology for the cost estimates: these are based on the hourly rates of working time of officials and experts of relevant professions. Costs of construction works should be based on the expert opinion of engineers or other competent experts. For construction actions, it is noted that costs will vary according to specific location and conditions and additional studies are needed to plan the actions in detail. The costs of construction actions are usually determined by the known average price range, and is presented as price per unit (per length or area unit of an object). This is the reason why concrete costs of construction works have not been provided in the description of measures. The Action Plan identifies 65 out of the 110 individual actions as “obligatory” in that they are required and implemented under existing legislation or programmes; the other 45 actions are identified as “supportive/mitigating”. In particular, the costs for many obligatory measures are set to zero as they are related to ongoing obligations and implementation processes, like described above (38 actions out of 65, for example, 59 % of obligatory measures have a value “0”). The costs are presented for administrative, research and advisory actions of measures and mainly for these actions that are not obligatory. Time required for the operations has also been taken into consideration in the calculations of costs, and is based on expert opinion. The FRMPs do not describe any differences in the calculation methods of costs for different types of measures (prevention, protection, preparedness). 4.2 Funding of measures According to the FRMPs and the Action Plan, measures are being financed from the state budget, local government budgets, European Union and private sector funds, depending on which organisation or body is responsible. Existing and potential sources of funding are identified for each measure (the FRMPs note that potential sources can change). Table 7 Funding of measures All UoMs assessed Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding Use of public budget (national level) ✔ Use of public budget (regional level) ✔ Use of public budget (local level) ✔ Private investment ✔ EU funds (generic) ✔ EU Structural funds ✔ EU Solidarity Fund EU Cohesion funds ✔ EU CAP funds ✔ International funds Source: FRMPs 4.3 Measurable and specific (including location) measures The Action Plan provides information on the description of each action, its location (the APSFR or the UoM as a whole) and the responsible authorities. For many but not all actions, a completion date is provided. Consequently, for all measures and actions across the three UoMs, the planning documents provide a clear description of the measures and actions with regard to: ·What they are trying to achieve, ·Where they are to be achieved, ·How they are to be achieved. The planning documents do not, however, always provide clear information on: ·By when the measures and actions are expected to be achieved. As noted above, the measures and actions indicate the following levels of location: Table 8 Location of measures All UoMs International National RBD/UoM ✔ Sub-basin APSFR or other specific risk area ✔ Water body level

Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs The location of the measures and their actions is in most cases the relevant APSFR, but in some cases the whole UoM is designated: this is for actions in EE3, in particular. 4.4 Measures and objectives It is not clear how measures will contribute to the achievement of objectives, nor clear by how much they will contribute. It is also not clear whether the objectives will be achieved when all measures are completed. The expected impacts are not described in the related Action Plan and FRMPs and no numerical indicators have been proposed, therefore the actions’ impacts are not quantifiable. In the FRMPs quite detailed descriptions of actions for achieving the objectives are given in table format, but there are no measurable indicators identified for evaluating their progress. On the other hand, the objectives in the Action Plan are actually equivalent to the aspects of measures (prevention, preparedness etc). For these reasons, it is not possible (based on the FRMPs and the Action Plan) to assess progress of the implementation of the management plan against its objectives. 4.5 Geographic coverage/scale of measures As noted above, the Action Plan identifies the location of actions: this is either the UoM or the APSFR level (the latter is designated only for actions in EE1 and EE2, the West-Estonian and East-Estonian UoMs, respectively). The Action Plan identifies the geographic coverage of actions at either UoM or at APSFR level for many measures in EE1 and EE2. 4.6 Prioritisation of measures In the reporting sheets, Estonia indicated the priority of all measures: 83% of all the measures are categorised as high priority (measures of all aspects are classified at this level of priority) and the remaining 17 % as moderate priority (only prevention measures). No measures are categorised in the other three categories for reporting: critical, very high or low priority. All UoMs have basically the same proportion (ranging 82-83%) of high priority measures compared to moderate priority measures (for details see Tables A5 and A6 in Annex A). Estonia’s FRMPs and Action Plan provide more detailed information at the level of actions, but also present a different scale of priority: there are three levels – high, moderate, and low priority and, in addition to those three main levels, “risk area specific”, meaning that the priority can only be estimated on at risk area level. Most but not all actions are assigned a main level of priority: however, some actions are designated as “risk area specific”. Out of the total of 44 construction actions, 18 are identified as “obligatory” and their priority is set as “high”. The remaining 26 construction actions are set as “supportive/mitigating” and for the majority of these, their level of priority is set as “risk area specific” – only one of the “supportive/mitigating” construction actions has high priority and two have no priority (not relevant in certain APSFR). This information in the Action Plan is in contrast with the text of FRMPs, where it is stated that the priority of construction actions was not evaluated in the preparation of the FRMPs, as it may vary from location to location. According to the FRMPs, the prioritisation of actions associated to the measures has used the following principles: 1)All actions based on legal acts and other actions that are already being implemented are automatically considered as of high priority. 2)Priority assessment for non-technical mitigating actions is carried out at operational level, i.e. either at APSFR or UoM level depending on the action. The priority level depends on the relevance of the action in the area concerned. The relevance is defined by control questions: a.Does the action directly help to save people's lives, protect human health? b.Does the action directly contribute to the prevention of flood risk in densely populated areas? c.Is the action an important study/research whose output is important for the further implementation of other actions? 3)For construction actions, priority is assessed by taking into account CBA, in order to avoid excessive costs of high priority construction actions. For construction actions, the ability of the action in mitigating the negative effects of flooding has been taken into account in particular. The prioritisation is carried out locally. According to the reporting sheets, Estonia reported information about the timetable of all measures, but not all answers referred to a period of time and it was thus not possible to meaningfully aggregate the information. In the FRMPs, completion dates are indicated for 46 out of 110 actions. The completion date for one administrative action has been set to be 2016. For the majority (27 actions out of the 46, 59 %) the completion date is as 2018. For 18 actions (39 %), the completion date is 2021. For the actions where no completion date is indicated, some information is provided, such as: “continuous implementation”, or “according to the situation” or “when preparing comprehensive, detailed or other plans”.

4.7 Authorities responsible for implementation of measures The Action Plan states that the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of the Interior Affairs, in co-operation with other ministries and local municipalities, will co-ordinate the identification of responsible authorities. The FRMPs indicate that most measures and actions have more than one responsible authority. For each action, there will be a main authority directly responsible for the implementation of an action and for many, there will be additional authorities that support the main one. According to the Action Plan, in most cases the main authority is either at national level – a Ministry or a public authority under a Ministry – or at municipal level. In few cases the implementing authority is the owner. As examples: ·Local municipalities are responsible for actions related to construction or restoration of public water supply systems, spatial planning, obligations and activities under the Building Act. ·For actions for the implementation of the operational programme for preparedness to emergency situations, each local municipality will be the main authority and the Rescue Board (a national body that coordinates of emergency work and response, including for fires, floods and snow storms) will be the additional authority. ·For actions for natural water retention measures such as buffer strips, in most cases the local municipality is the main authority and the land owner is the additional authority. ·The Environmental Inspectorate is the main authority for actions related to supervision of protection of environment and consequently for supervision of actions to address pollution risks from industrial plants and agriculture during floods. The Technical Supervision Board (which develops and enforces technical safety regulations) is named as the additional authority for an action to oversee the storage conditions of chemicals and related licences. ·The Health Board is the main authority for a mapping action to establish and periodically update a list of enterprises in each APSFR that use, process or produce hazardous chemicals. The Environmental Board is the authority that supports this action. 4.8 Progress of implementation of measures According to the reporting sheets, Estonia reported the progress of all measures as ‘progress ongoing’. While the FRMPs and the Action Plan do not provide detail about the status of measures and actions, the Action Plan indicates that 23 actions out of the 110 are continuous. 4.9 Measures taken under other Community Acts Member States have been asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure has been implemented: however, Estonia did not provide information on this. 4.10 Specific groups of measures In all three FRMPs, it is stated that FRMPs take into account spatial planning and land use. Indeed, the first “measure group” defined in the Estonian FRMPs involves 'limiting the founding and construction of new objects in flood risk areas' and includes (at the second level) measures for 'planning with consideration of flood risk and natural water retention measures' and 'defining areas with building ban, establishing conditions for buildings in densely populated areas at flood risk, and ensuring water resistance in other flood risk areas'. The FRMPs do not provide information if the framework of halting or controlling buildings/development in floodplains evolved since 2000. Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in all three FRMPs. NWRMs and their use are generally described in the FRMPs, although their actions are defined and listed more explicitly only in the Action Plan. The following NWRM measures have been identified under the “measure block” defined as 'Rainwater dispersion and implementation of natural water retention measures to improve ground infiltration': ·The implementation of NWRMs in densely populated areas to disperse rainwater and improve infiltration (the actions under this measure include building green roofs, rainwater harvesting, creation of infiltration trenches and basins, restoring and creating wetlands and improving water retention abilities of drainage systems); ·The implementation of NWRMs in agricultural lands to disperse rainwater and improve infiltration; ·The implementation of NWRMs in forest lands to disperse rainwater and improve infiltration; ·The implementation of natural hydromorphology water retention measures to disperse rainwater and improve infiltration;

·Maintenance of land improvement systems in order to ensure drainage of excess water. In the Action Plan an action for re-meandering and reconnection of oxbow lakes and similar features is described and evaluated. Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. All three FRMPs make a brief reference that they take into account all relevant aspects, including nature protection aspects. The Action Plan refers in a generic manner to biodiversity. However, further details are not available. All three FRMPs make a brief reference that they take into consideration navigation and port infrastructure. There is a specific action for the prevention of flood-related pollution originating from ports. The FRMPs also refer to measures for dredging to increase the river channel capacity and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation purposes. All three FRMPs mention dredging as a possible action in the second measure block, under a measure for “The implementation of natural hydromorphology water retention measure to disperse rainwater and improve infiltration”. The Action Plan includes actions presented for better maintenance of drainage systems (e.g. dredging and removal of sediment and vegetation from water bodies in order to ensure better water flow in rivers). Dredging and cleaning of drainage systems in agricultural and forest areas is considered to be an obligatory action, while removal of sediment and vegetation from natural water bodies needs impact and efficiency evaluations prior to implementation. 4.11 Recovery from and resilience to flooding No reference has been found in the FRMPs to insurance policies as a measure. Nevertheless, a rather brief a reference was found in the Action Plan under the measure of 'Ensuring the safety of the population during and after the flood' where the following specific action has been described: Flood relief (e.g. recovery and/or improvement of temporary protection facilities, street restoration, garbage disposal, etc.). It is stated that the action must be taken after every flood. Under possible funding sources, insurance companies are included (along with state budget and owners). 4.12 Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP There is no information provided in the FRMPs or their annexes how implementation of the planned measures will be monitored. However, the reporting sheets state that activities are planned to monitor the effectiveness of measures, and in the middle of the FRMP cycle, local authorities will provide feedback on the implementation of the plan. No further details are provided as to the specific timing or the activities to be carried out. Based on the FRMPs (including their annexes) no information has been provided whether a baseline has been established against which progress will be monitored and assessed. 4.13 Coordination with the Water Framework Directive The table below shows how the development of the FRMPs has been coordinated with the development of the second RBMPs of the WFD. Table 9 Coordination of the development of the FRMPs with the development of the second River Basin Management Plans of the WFD All UoMs assessed Integration of FRMPs and RBMPs into a single plan Joint consultation of draft FRMPs and RBMPs ✔ Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMPs and RBMPs ✔ Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD ✔ The objectives of the Floods Directive were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a ✔ Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in FRMPs The RBMP PoM includes win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and NWRMs a ✔ Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence maintenance or construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and RBMPs Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included ✔ Consistent and compliant application of WFD Article 4(7) and designation of heavily modified water bodies with measures taken under the FD e.g. flood defence infrastructure The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, have been adapted to take into account WFD Environmental Objectives a The use of sustainable drainage systems, such as the construction of wetland and porous pavements, have been considered to reduce urban flooding and also to contribute to the achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD The FRMPs state that the parallel preparation of the FRMPs and RBMPs makes it possible to harmonise and synchronise planning of measures and to address potential conflicts. Coordination included consultation with the Commission for River Basin Management, which brings together government bodies, national experts and water service companies for coordination on the implementation of the WFD and RBMPs: consultation with the Commission included the definition of measures and actions. The FRMPs were also prepared together with the second RBMPs in corresponding RBDs/UoMs and the Ministry of Environment is the main competent authority for both. In addition, the FRMPs include NWRMs that can support the objectives of the WFD (see further description above). Furthermore, the Action Plan indicates, for each FRMP action, whether it supports the objectives of the RBMP, is neutral or is in conflict with the objectives of the RBMP. Supportive actions are primarily those that preserve the natural environment, such as NWRMs and related work, e.g. to assess the effectiveness of NWRMs. Neutral actions are primarily related to life, health and property. Construction-engineering actions are marked as conflicting. Although, the Action Plan describes actions targeted at flood risk management and assesses their compatibility with the RBMPs, it does not explicitly explain whether WFD objectives have been taken into account in the development of the FRMP measures and actions.

4.14 Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures The following good practices were identified: ·The Action Plan provides details on measures and actions: their location and responsible authorities and, for some, information on costs and deadlines. Many of the actions are specific and measurable. ·Most actions have been prioritised at the level of UoMs and APSFRs. The methodology for prioritisation has been described in the FRMPs. ·The FRMPs and the Action Plan include measures and actions for sustainable land use and for implementing NWRMs. ·The preparation of the FRMPs was coordinated with the preparation of the second RBMPs under the WFD via consultation with the Commission for River Basin Management on measures and actions. Moreover, the Ministry of Environment was the main competent authority for both documents. ·The Action Plan assesses each action for its compatibility with the RBMP. ·A measure for preventing post-flood pollution has been proposed The following areas for further development were identified: ·While some cost information is provided, it was not been broken down per UoM. Cost information has not been provided for construction measures. ·Since the defined objectives are rather generic and not measurable, it is not clear how and by how much the measures and their actions will contribute to the achievement of objectives, nor is it clear whether the objectives will be achieved when all the measures are completed. ·No indicators for evaluating the impact and progress of measures and actions are described, and no baseline is established. ·There is no description in the FRMPs or Action Plan how the progress and impact of the measures and actions will be monitored. ·The FRMPs and Estonia’s reporting sheets do not provide information about links of the measures and actions to other Community Acts.

5. Consideration of climate change Estonia’s FRMPs each include a chapter dedicated to climate change and how its impact is taken into account, including at the PFRA stage. The chapters identify documents that have assessed the impact of climate change to flooding and aquatic ecosystems in Estonia. The climate-sensitivity of individual actions was assessed (see section 4 and Annex A2 on Estonia’s structure of measure groups, measures and actions), and priority should be given to actions that are more flexible and adaptable to a changing climate (i.e. less climate sensitive). The results of the climate-sensitivity tests are presented in the Action Plan: each action is rated as either low, average or high. The FRMPs note that climate sensitivity was assessed more thoroughly for construction actions. Research, administrative and advisory actions may be affected by projected climate change, but in the analysis these actions (and their results) are considered as low-climate-sensitive actions, due to their short-term nature. Actions assessed with a high category of climate sensitivity include: improving flood protection of existing sewage treatment plants by constructing protective walls or elevating the surface in areas prone to flooding, improving protection of drinking water systems (wells and bore wells, pumping stations, water pipes) from flooding and addressing pollution risks to drinking water during flood events. In addition, NWRMs are usually categorised as of high climate sensitivity, as they are considered long-term actions in the FRMPs. Accordingly, that means their implementation requires consideration of projected climate change until their active lifespan is over (until the year 2100). In general, it is explained that actions which are recommended or assigned a long-term implementation period are usually associated with high climate sensitivity. Actions for spatial planning and land use are generally categorized as of average climate sensitivity, meaning that mostly they should not be directly affected by climate change, though indirect impacts may occur.

While the measures were assessed in terms of their climate sensitivity, it does not appear that any measures are taken specifically to address the impacts of climate change. The FRMPs refer to the national Climate Change Adaption Strategy but note that the Draft Implementation Plan of the Climate Change Adaption Strategy was planned to be ready in 2016. The Implementation Plan was completed and approved in 2017, and it includes measures specifically to address flood risk in the face of climate change – measures additional to those in the FRMPs and Action Plan. The results of the Implementation Plan will be taken into account in the second cycle of the implementation of Floods Directive. Concerning the timeframes of the climate change scenarios, climate change projections have been made for both short and long term (2030 and 2100). It is stated that with the help of the probability scenarios considered in the FHRMs and the climatic forecasts it will be possible to assure the corresponding actions to be as effective as possible in the future. It is emphasised that it will be necessary to take into account the long expected lifespan of construction actions. The FRMPs include brief notes about changes in intensity and frequency of flood events as a consequence of climate change: they state that no major change in frequency is expected for flood events with potentially significant adverse impacts. 5.1 Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change The following good practices were identified: ·Climate change was addressed in the development of the FRMPs and the Action Plan: most importantly, the sensitivity of all actions to potential climate change was assessed. The methodology for this assessment is presented in the FRMPs.

6. Cost-benefit analysis In the Action Plan, 44 actions out of 110 are totally or partially devoted to construction and engineering activities. Estonia’s FRMPs state that CBA was used in the prioritisation process of actions, specifically for construction and engineering actions, including both grey infrastructure and green infrastructure (NWRMs). It is stated that this is done in order to avoid excessive costs. The FRMPs mention that the cost/benefit based priority assessments are carried out at the local level, but neither the methodology nor the results of the assessments are presented in the FRMPs. The FRMPs state that the costs of construction and engineering actions are site and facility-specific. For this reason, the FRMPs state that an additional, more detailed analysis on their costs should be carried out. This indicates that the CBA results may need to be revised. The FRMPs also state that the costs of other actions – such as actions associated with administrative activities, research and studies – are evaluated based on consideration of resources and time needed to complete the actions, but do not report details about the methodologies for these evaluations. Based on the available information in the FRMPs and Action Plan, it is not possible to evaluate whether multi-benefits have been taken into account or not in the CBA, nor whether transnational effects have been considered. 6.1 Good practices and areas for further development The following good practice was identified: ·Cost benefit analysis is identified as a criterion for the prioritisation of construction actions, including for NWRMs. The following areas for further development were identified: ·The methodology for the CBA has not been described nor the results presented.

7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation 7.1 Competent authorities Based on Estonia’s reporting sheets, FRMPs and Action Plan, the Competent Authorities and Units of Management identified for the Floods Directive have not changed. Documents submitted to the European Commission on the subject have not been updated since 2010.

7.2 Public information and consultation The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the UoMs assessed concerning the draft FRMPs. Information how the consultation was actually carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section: Table 10 Methods used to inform the public and interested parties of the FRMPs All UoMs assessed Media (papers, TV, radio) ✔ Internet ✔ Digital social networking Printed material ✔ Direct mailing ✔ Invitations to stakeholders Local Authorities ✔ Meetings ✔ Public information boards, exhibitions and an online survey ✔ Source: FRMPs For all three FRMPs assessed, most of the information was provided via internet, in particular via websites of the responsible authorities (primarily the relevant ministries, also county and local governments). Public information boards were also used. Public displays (exhibitions) of the draft FRMPs were organised in county centres (for each FRMP separately, in a location dependent on the UoM it covers). Also, thematic brochures were published and an online awareness survey was carried out to draw attention to the development of the FRMPs. Interested parties were informed by direct mailing. Announcements were made in local and national newspapers. The table below shows how the actual consultation was carried out: Table 11 Methods used for the actual consultation All UoMs assessed Via Internet ✔ Digital social networking Direct invitation Exhibitions ✔ Workshops, seminars or conferences ✔ Telephone surveys Direct involvement in drafting FRMP ✔ An online awareness survey ✔ Together with other public consultations ✔ Source: FRMPs Many of the information mechanisms were also used for the consultation itself. The survey covered awareness of how to act in the event of a flood event. It was online for 25 weeks: 273 people responded, and the feedback was used in the preparation of the FRMPs. Draft FRMPs were available for six months, and written feedback and proposals were collected during this process. The Ministry of the Environment organised public displays (exhibitions) in each of Estonia’s 15 county centres; these also provided the opportunity for the public to ask questions and make proposals. A total of 25 meetings and workshops were held with interested parties. For example, three public meetings were organised in three locations where it was possible to ask questions and make proposals about all FRMPs as well as the Action Plan, no matter the location of debate. For some of the meetings, the agenda, presentations and lists of participants are available on internet. In the course of some meetings, additional information was requested from local authorities in important risk areas. Furthermore, the drafts were submitted for review and approval by the national Commission for River Basin Management, which brings together government bodies, national experts and water service companies (see also section 4). The draft FRMPs were also discussed during the public consultation on the national marine strategy. In addition, the Rescue Board carried out public surveys on public preparedness to emergency events, including also flooding (this was separate to the survey for the FRMP and was not related exclusively to the FRMP process). Information on the FRMPs was specifically included in public consultations on the introduction of national land improvement plans (which include activities such as digging and maintaining drainage ditches on agriculture and forest land and maintaining estuaries). The table below shows how the documents for the consultation were provided: Table 12 Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation All UoMs assessed Downloadable ✔ Direct mailing (e-mail) Direct mailing (post) Paper copies distributed at exhibitions ✔ Paper copies available in municipal buildings (town hall, library etc.) ✔ Source: FRMPs Documents were available for examination in the public displays in county governments, mentioned above, and in the offices of the Environment Board. Drafts were available via Internet on the website of the Ministry of the Environment and on a dedicated thematic web page, provided by the authors of the FRMPs.

7.3 Active involvement of Stakeholders The table below shows the groups of stakeholders that have been actively involved in the development of the FRMPs: Table 13 Groups of stakeholders All UoMs assessed Civil Protection Authorities such as Government Departments responsible for emergency planning and coordination of response actions ✔ Flood Warning / Defence Authorities Drainage Authorities ✔ Emergency services ✔ Water supply and sanitation Agriculture / farmers ✔ Hydropower Navigation / ports Fisheries / aquaculture Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) NGOs including nature protection, social issues (e.g. children, housing) Consumer Groups Local / Regional authorities ✔ Academia / Research Institutions Source: FRMPs As noted above, the FRMPs were reviewed by the Commission for River Basin Management. In addition, the FRMPs specifically mention the participation of several government bodies in their development: the Rescue Board (which among its tasks coordinates inland fire and rescue services), the Agricultural Board (responsible for the planning of land improvement systems) and local authorities are mentioned explicitly in the FRMPs. Detailed information about the participation and contribution of other interested parties, including private stakeholders and the public, is not provided in the FRMPs or the reporting sheets: for example, the specific stakeholders involved are not identified. Nor do the FRMPs provide a list of comments and proposals received from interested parties during the process, or information on how comments and proposals were addressed The table below shows the mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders: Table 14 Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders All UoMs assessed Regular exhibitions Establishment of advisory groups Involvement in drafting Workshops, seminars or conferences ✔ Formation of alliances Source: FRMPs The main mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders were the public meetings and workshops described above. 7.4 Effects of consultation The FRMPs do not describe the effects of the involvement of various stakeholders – for example, there is no summary of comments received. There is no reference to other documents that could contain this information. 7.5 Strategic Environmental Assessment The FRMPs do not provide information about an SEA procedure, nor does the Ministry of Environment’s website, and no information was found on the web portal for official announcements. On this basis, it appears that an SEA was not carried out. 7.6 Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance The following good practices were identified: ·Several mechanisms have been used for involving stakeholders. In total, 25 workshops were held to present the FRMPs and gather feedback from stakeholders and the public. A survey was held to gather information on public awareness related to floods, and its results were used in the FRMP. A range of national and local government bodies provided input. ·Consultations on policy activities related to flood risk management, such as the marine strategy and land management, were used to raise awareness and gather input on the FRMPs.

·Coordination with local and national authorities took place via the Commission for River Basin Management as well as direct involvement in the preparation of the FRMPs. The following areas for further development were identified: ·The FRMPs do not provide information on the inputs received during the consultation, nor on changes made in response to inputs from stakeholders or the public. ·It appears that SEAs have not been carried out for any of the FRMPs.

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures reported by Estonia in the reporting sheets. These tables and charts were used for the preparation of section 4 on measures. Background & method This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs). The tables and charts below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the Member States, and were used by the Member State assessors to complete the questions on the Flood measures. The data are extracted from the XMLs (reporting sheets) reported by Member States for each FRMP, and are split into the following sections: ·Measures overview –Tabulates the number of measures for each UoM; ·Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; ·Measures details: name & location – Location & geographic coverage; ·Measure details: authorities – Name of responsible authority & level of responsibility; ·Measure details: objectives – Objectives, Category of priority & Timetable; ·Measure details: progress – Progress of implementation & Progress description; ·Measure details: other – Other Community Acts. On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive), not all fields are mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields. Some of the fields in the XMLs were filled in using standardised answers – for example, progress is measured via the categories set out in the Reporting Guidance. This means that producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort. For many fields, however, a free data format was used. In some cases, this resulted in thousands of different answer, or answers given in the national language. In such situations, tables and charts were developed using the following steps: ·A first filter is applied to identify how many different answers were given. If a high number of different answers are given, Member States assessors were asked to refer to the raw data when conducting the assessment, and this document does not reflect these observations. ·If a manageable number of answers are given, obvious categories are identified, and raw data sorted.

·Measures missing information may be assigned categories based on other fields (for example, if the level of Responsibility Authority is missing, the information may be obvious from the field “name of Responsible Authority”). ·Measures where obvious categories cannot be defined based on other available information (as the example above), are categorised as “no information”. Types of measures used in reporting The following table is used in the reporting on the types of measures. Each type of measures is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. NO ACTION M11: No Action PREPAREDNESS M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning M42: Emergency response planning M43: Public Awareness M44: Other preparedness PREVENTION M21: Avoidance M22: Removal or relocation M23: Reduction M24: Other prevention RECOVERY & REVIEW M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery M52: Environmental recovery M53: Other recovery PROTECTION M31: Natural flood management M32: Flow regulation M33: Coastal and floodplain works M34: Surface Water Management M35: other protection OTHER MEASURES M61: Other measures

List of tables & figures Figure A1 - Number of total measures by measure aspect Figure A2 - Share of total measures by measure aspect Figure A3 – Visualisation of Table A3: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) Figure A4 – Visualisation of Table A4: Cost by UoM (EUR) Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A5: Category of priority by measure aspect Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A6: Category of priority by UoM Table A1 - Total number of measures Table A2 - Total number of measures, per measure type and UoM, including duplicates Table A3 – Cost by measure aspect (EUR) Table A4 – Cost by UoM (EUR) Table A5 - Category of priority by measure aspect Table A6 - Category of priority by UoM

Measures overview Table A1 - Total number of measures Number of individual measures 0 Number of individual measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 0 Number of aggregated measures 70 Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 70 Total number of measures 70 Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 70 Range of number of measures between UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type (Min-Max) 22-24 Average number of measures across UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 23 Table A2 - Total number of measures, per measure type and UoM, including duplicates Prevention Total Protection Total Preparedness Total Recovery & review Total Other Grand Total M21 M22 M23 M24 M31 M41 M42 M43 M44 M53 EE1 2 1 5 7 15 1 1 1 3 1 2 7 1 1 24 EE2 2 1 5 7 15 1 1 1 3 1 2 7 1 1 24 EE3 2 1 5 6 14 1 1 1 2 1 2 6 1 1 22 Grand Total 6 3 15 20 44 3 3 3 8 3 6 20 3 3 0 70 Average per UoM 2 1 5 7 15 1 1 1 3 1 2 7 1 1 0 23 Note: All measures are aggregated as Estonia did not report any individual measures. The information in Table A2 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: Figure A1 - Number of total measures by measure aspect Note: All measures are aggregated as Estonia did not report any individual measures. Figure A2 - Share of total measures by measure aspect Note: All measures are aggregated as Estonia did not report any individual measures. Measure details: cost Member States were requested to provide information on: ·Cost (optional field); ·Cost explanation (optional field). Estonia completed these fields for all measures. The same cost explanation was provided for all measures in the reporting sheets: ‘The costs are for administrative, research and advisory activities. Taken with the Civil Service 2015 document. The resources and time needed for the operation, which is converted into euros, are considered.’ Concerning cost, the highest was around EUR 69 000 (69k) and the lowest was nearly EUR 3 000 (3k). The remaining figures were categorised in the following tables.

Table A3 – Cost by measure aspect (EUR) 1-5k 5-10k 10-15k 15-20k 20-50k over 50k Cost unknown Grand Total Prevention 8 3 3 3 27 44 Protection 3 3 Preparedness 2 3 9 3 3 20 Recovery & review 3 3 Grand Total 8 2 9 6 12 3 30 70 Figure A3 – Visualisation of Table A3: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) Table A4 – Cost by UoM (EUR) 1-5k 5-10k 10-15k 15-20k 20-50k over 50k Cost unknown Grand Total EE1 3 1 3 2 4 1 10 24 EE2 3 1 3 2 4 1 10 24 EE3 2 3 2 4 1 10 22 Grand Total 8 2 9 6 12 3 30 70 Average per UoM 3 1 3 2 4 1 10 23 Figure A4 – Visualisation of Table A4: Cost by UoM (EUR) Measure details: name & location Member States were requested to provide information on: ·Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); ·Geographic coverage of the impact of measures (optional field). Location of measures In the reporting sheets, Estonia reported the location of all measures as the respective UoM. Geographic coverage Similarly, Estonia reported the same geographic coverage for all measures: ‘RBD/UoM’. Measure details: objectives Member States were requested to provide information on: ·Objectives linked to measures (optional field, complementary to the summary provided in the textual part of the XML); ·Category of priority (Conditional, reporting on either ‘category of priority’ or ‘timetable’ is required);

·Timetable (Conditional, reporting on either ‘category of priority’ or ‘timetable’ is required). Objectives Estonia reported objectives for all measures in the reporting sheets. The objectives were generally ‘preventive’, ‘readiness’ or a combination of the two. Category of priority Estonia provided information for the priority of all measures. The following categories are used: ·Critical; ·Very high; ·High; ·Moderate; ·Low. Table A5 - Category of priority by measure aspect High Moderate Grand Total Prevention 32 12 44 Protection 3 3 Preparedness 20 20 Recovery & review 3 3 Grand Total 58 12 70 Note: No measures were categorised as critical, very high or low priority. Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A5: Category of priority by measure aspect Note: No measures were categorised as critical, very high or low priority. Table A6 - Category of priority by UoM High Moderate Grand Total EE1 20 4 24 EE2 20 4 24 EE3 18 4 22 Grand Total 58 12 70 Average per UoM 19 4 23 Note: No measures were categorised as critical, very high or low priority. Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A6: Category of priority by UoM Note: No measures were categorised as critical, very high or low priority.

Timetable Estonia reported information about the timetable of all measures in the reporting sheets. However not all answers referred to a period of time and it was thus not possible to meaningfully aggregate the information. Measure details: authorities Member States were requested to provide information on: ·Name of the responsible authority; ·Level of responsibility. Estonia completed these fields for all measures. However, as this was an open question the responses concerning responsible authority varied greatly and it was not possible to aggregate the information. The level of responsibility of the relevant actors falls in three categories: national, municipal and owner of the site. However, multiple levels were indicated for single measures leading to some double counting and making the meaningful aggregation of the information impossible. Measure details: progress Member States were requested to provide information on: ·Progress of implementation of measures (mandatory field) – this is a closed question whose responses are analysed below; ·Progress description of the implementation of measures (optional field) – this is an open text question for which not all Member States reported and whose answers are not analysed here. Information about the progress of implementation of the measures was reported as: ·COM (completed); ·OGC (ongoing construction); ·POG (progress ongoing); ·NS (not started). Estonia reported the progress of all measures as ‘progress ongoing’. The categories describing the progress of measures are defined in the EU Reporting Guidance Document on the Floods Directive.

For measures involving construction or building works (e.g. a waste water treatment plant, a fish pass, a river restoration project, etc.): ·Not started (NS) means the technical and/or administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have not started. ·Progress on-going (POG) means that administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have started but are not finalised. The simple inclusion in the RBMPs is not considered planning in this context. ·On-going construction (OGC) means the construction or building works have started but are not finalized. ·Completed (COM) means the works have been finalised and the facilities are operational (maybe only in testing period in case e.g. a waste water treatment plant). For measures involving advisory services (e.g. training for farmers): ·Not started (NS) means the advisory services are not yet operational and have not provided any advisory session yet. ·Progress on-going (POG) means the advisory services are operational and are being used. This is expected to be the situation for all multi- annual long/mid-term advisory services that are expected to be operational during the whole or most of RBMP cycle. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means an advisory service that has been implemented and has been finalised, i.e. is no longer operational. This is expected only for advisory services that are relatively short term or one-off, and which duration is time limited in relation to the whole RBMP cycle. For measures involving research, investigation or studies: ·Not started (NS) means the research, investigation or study has not started, i.e. contract has not been signed or there has not been any progress. ·Progress on-going (POG) means the research, investigation or study has been contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means the research, investigation or study has been finalised and has been delivered, i.e. the results or deliverables are available (report, model, etc.). For measures involving administrative acts (e.g. licenses, permits, regulations, instructions, etc.): ·Not started (NS) means the administrative file has not been opened and there has not been any administrative action as regards the measure. ·Progress on-going (POG) means an administrative file has been opened and at least a first administrative action has been taken (e.g. requirement to an operator to provide information to renew the licensing, request of a permit by an operator, internal consultation of draft regulations, etc.). If the measure involves more than one file, the opening of one would mean already “ongoing”. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license or permit has been issued; the regulation has been adopted, etc.). If the measure involves more than one administrative act, “completed” is achieved only when all of them have been concluded. Measure details: other Member States were requested to provide information on: ·Other Community Act associated to the measures reported (optional field); ·Any other information reported (optional field). Estonia did not provide information about ‘Other Community Acts’ in the reporting sheets.



Annex A2: Estonia’s structure of measure groups, measures and actions In its FRMPs and Action Plan, Estonia has set out a three-level structure of measure groups, measures and actions. At the first level, there are 12 Measure groups (or blocks – Meetmeplokid in Estonian): 1.Restriction of building new objects in APSFRs 2.Dispersal of rain water and implementing of measures for enhancing natural means for rain water infiltration 3.Ensuring efficient performance of (rain) water collection systems 4.Ensuring good condition of dams 5.Avoiding post-flood pollution 6.Enhancing run-off, lowering the water level and preventing occurrence of high water levels by using constructional activities 7.Ensuring availability and installation of temporary protective barriers for APSFRs 8.Flood forecasts 9.Development and efficiency of evacuation plans 10.Ensuring availability of vital services (emergency medical aid, rescue services, food and water, electricity and transportation).

11.Protection of objects with significance of cultural heritage from potential flood-related hazards 12.Updating risk mitigation action plans At the second level, there are 24 Measures (Meetmed in Estonian). All 24 are listed for EE1, West Estonian UoM, and EE2, East Estonian UoM; only 22 are listed for EE3, the Koiva UoM (which does not contain APSFRs). This is the level that Estonia has reported to WISE: Estonia reported 70 measures, the sum of the measures in the three UoMs. At the third level, 110 Actions (Tegevused in Estonian) have been identified. The approach is hierarchical: the 24 level measures in the Action Plan are each assigned to one of the 12 measure groups. The 110 actions are in turn grouped under the 24 measures. The figure on the next page presents this structure.



Figure A7 – Estonia’s structure of measure groups, measures and actions Level III. 110 actions Level I. 12 measure groups Level II. 24 aggregated measures Annex B: Definitions of measure types Table B1 Types of flood risk management measures No Action M11 No Action, No measure is proposed to reduce the flood risk in the APSFR or other defined area, Prevention M21 Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation M22 Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to relocate receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard M23 Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc... M24 Prevention, Other prevention, Other measure to enhance flood risk prevention (may include, flood risk modelling and assessment, flood vulnerability assessment, maintenance programmes or policies etc...) Protection M31 Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the flow into natural or artificial drainage systems, such as overland flow interceptors and / or storage, enhancement of infiltration, etc and including in-channel , floodplain works and the reforestation of banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water. M32 Protection, Water flow regulation, Measures involving physical interventions to regulate flows, such as the construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line storage areas or development of existing flow regulation rules), and which have a significant impact on the hydrological regime. M33 Protection, Channel, Coastal and Floodplain Works, Measures involving physical interventions in freshwater channels, mountain streams, estuaries, coastal waters and flood-prone areas of land, such as the construction, modification or removal of structures or the alteration of channels, sediment dynamics management, dykes, etc. M34 Protection, Surface Water Management, Measures involving physical interventions to reduce surface water flooding, typically, but not exclusively, in an urban environment, such as enhancing artificial drainage capacities or though sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). M35 Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to enhance protection against flooding, which may include flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies Preparedness M41 Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or warning system M42 Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish or enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning M43 Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public awareness or preparedness for flood events M44 Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to establish or enhance preparedness for flood events to reduce adverse consequences Recovery & Review M51 Recovery and Review (Planning for the recovery and review phase is in principle part of preparedness), Individual and societal recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (buildings, infrastructure, etc), Health and mental health supporting actions, incl. managing stress Disaster financial assistance (grants, tax), incl. disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, Temporary or permanent relocation , Other M52 Recovery and Review, Environmental recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (with several sub-topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous materials containers) M53 Recovery and Review, Other, Other recovery and review Lessons learnt from flood events Insurance policies Other M61 Other Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) NWRM cover a wide range of actions and land use types. Many different measures can act as NWRM, by encouraging the retention of water within a catchment and, through that, enhancing the natural functioning of the catchment. The catalogue developed in the NWRM project represents a comprehensive but non prescriptive wide range of measures, and other measures, or similar measures called by a different name, that could also be classified as NWRM. To ease access to measures, the catalogue of measures hereunder is sorted by the primary land use in which it was implemented: Agriculture; Forest; Hydromorphology; Urban. Most of the measures however can be applied to more than one land use type. Table B2 List of NWRMs