EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 67 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Spain Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of contents Acronyms Introduction Overview Overview of the assessment Good practices Areas for further development Recommendations 1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1. Reporting of the FRMP 1.2. Assessment of the FRMP 2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 2.2Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs 2.3Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 2.4Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps 2.5Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information 3. Setting of Objectives 3.1Focus of objectives

3.2Specific and measurable objectives 3.3Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 3.4Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 3.5Process for setting the objectives 3.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives 4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives……………………………………. 4.1Cost of measures 4.2Funding of measures 4.3Measurable and specific (including location) measures 4.4Measures and objectives 4.5Geographic coverage/scale of measures 4.6Prioritisation of measures 4.7Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 4.8Progress of implementation of measures 4.9Measures taken under other Community Acts 4.10Specific groups of measures 4.11Recovery from and resilience to flooding 4.12Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMPs 4.13Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 4.14Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures

5. Consideration of climate change 5.1Specific measures planned to address climate change 5.2Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change 6. Cost-benefit analysis 6.1Good practices and areas for further development 7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation 7.1Competent authorities 7.2Public information and consultation 7.3Active involvement of Stakeholders 7.4Effects of consultation 7.5Strategic Environmental Assessment 7.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures Background & method Types of measures used in reporting List of Annex A tables and figures Measures overview Measure details: cost Measure details: name & location Location of measures

Geographic coverage Measure details: objectives Objectives Category of priority Timetable Measure details: authorities Measure details: progress Measure details: other Annex B:Definitions of measure types Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)

Acronyms APSFR Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 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 report assesses the FRMPs for Spain (ES). Its structure follows a common assessment template used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources: ·Member State reporting to the European Commission on the FRMPs as per Articles 7 and 15 of the FD: this reporting provides an overview of the plans and details on their measures ·Selected FRMPs: due to the high number of FRMPs prepared in Spain, the assessment has focused on a selected set of plans, chosen to cover a broad range of methodological approaches and different Units of Management (UoMs). The following FRMPs were reviewed:

oOne for a UoM managed at national level (ES080, Júcar); oFour UoMs managed at regional level: ES014, Galicia; ES017, Eastern Cantabrian, partially managed by the Basque Country authorities; ES060, Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, managed by the Andalusian authorities; and ES110, Balearic Islands.



Overview 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) Spain is divided into 25 Units of Management (UoMs), which correspond to the River Basin Districts (RBDs) under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). At the time of drafting this report, Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) had been approved and reported for 17 of Spain’s UoMs, the exceptions being the UoMs for Catalonia (ES100) and the Canary Islands (ES120 to ES127): see the Table 1 below for an overview. The approach for preparing the FRMPs is similar in each UoM, based on work developed by the National Ministry for Agriculture. However, certain differences can be found when comparing the national approach with the FRMPs developed by regional competent authorities (such as Galicia, Andalusia, the Basque Country and the Balearic Islands which have been assessed for this report). The regional FRMPs also differ in the degree of detail provided. In Spain the FRMPs were adopted by Royal Decree: ·The FRMPs for ES010, 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, 80, 91, 150 and 160 – by Royal Decree 18/2016 on 15 January 2016 ·ES014, RD 19/2016, 15 January 2016 ·ES017 and 18, RD 20/2016, 15 January 2016 ·ES060, 63 and 64, RD 21/2016, 15 January 2016 ·ES110, RD 159/2016, on 15 April 2016 The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in Spain, including the UoM code, the name, and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if the UoM reported all documents required to European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE – the FRMP as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML. UoM Name Number of APSFRs XML reported PDF Reported ES010 MINHO-SIL 24 Yes Yes ES014 GALICIAN COAST 207 Yes Yes ES017 EASTERN CANTABRIAN 73 Yes Yes ES018 WESTERN CANTABRIAN 110 Yes Yes ES020 DOURO 26 Yes Yes ES030 TAGUS 33 Yes Yes ES040 GUADIANA 45 Yes Yes ES050 GUADALQUIVIR 109 Yes Yes ES060 ANDALUSIAN MEDITERRANEAN BASINS 204 Yes Yes ES063 GUADALETE-BARBATE 42 Yes Yes ES064 TIONTO-ODIEL-PEIDRAS 34 Yes Yes ES070 SEGURA 35 Yes Yes ES080 JUCAR 58 Yes Yes ES091 EBRO 46 Yes Yes ES100 INTERNAL BASINS OF CATALONIA 29 Yes 2 Yes 2 ES110 BALEARIC ISLANDS 43 Yes Yes ES120 GRAN CANARIA 47 No No ES122 FUERTEVENTURA 34 No No ES123 LANZAROTE 37 No No ES124 TENERIFE 33 No No ES125 LA PALMA 12 No No ES126 LA GOMERA 7 No No ES127 EL HIERRO 7 No No ES150 CEUTA 7 Yes Yes ES160 MEILILLA 4 Yes Yes TOTAL 1 306 18 2 152 2

The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web page: http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/agua/temas/gestion-de-los-riesgos-de-inundacion/planes-gestion-riesgos-inundacion/Enlace_documentacion_PGRI.aspx



Overview of the assessment Table 2 below gives an overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMP. 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 FRMPs assessed include a list of established objectives FRM objectives relate to... ...the reduction of potential adverse consequences Strong evidence This aspect is specified in the definition of objectives in the FRMPs ...to the reduction of the likelihood of flooding Some evidence The objectives of the FRMPs aim to reduce the vulnerability and risk to flooding; however, without further specification. ...to non-structural initiatives Strong evidence This aspect is specified in the definition of objectives in the FRMPs FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to... ...human health Some evidence These aspects are specified in the definition of objectives in the FRMPs, at an overall level (aim of the FRMPs), but not in detail within what the Spanish FRMPs denominate as the “general objectives”. UoM-specific objectives have only been defined in one UoM out of the five assessed. ...economic activity Some evidence These aspects are specified in the definition of objectives in the FRMPs at an overall level (aim of the FRMPs), but not in detail within the general objectives, where economic activity is mentioned twice ...environment Some evidence These aspects are specified in the definition of objectives in the FRMPs, and one of the general objectives includes the contribution to the achievement of the WFD objectives. However, the environment is only mentioned once in the text of the other general objectives ...cultural heritage Some evidence Cultural heritage is not explicitly specified in the definition of objectives in the FRMPs, though mentioned in the higher level, that of the aim of FRMPs Measures have been... ...identified Strong evidence The FRMPs include a set of measures, including those that have been started in the past and others that are new. ...prioritised Strong evidence Measures have been prioritised according to four criteria, namely: 1. a ranking of the objectives according to their relevance, developed in some of the UoMs explicitly (Galicia, ES014) after technical and stakeholder meetings 2. a cost-benefit assessment of the measures (which is not further described) 3. a comparison of the geographical extent of the measure implementation, prioritising those measures that cover a wider geographical range 4. beneficial links with the implementation of related EU legislation, in particular the Water Framework Directive Relevant aspects of Article 7 have been taken into account such as... ...costs & benefits Some evidence The FRMPs refer to cost benefit assessment as a criterion for the establishment of priorities for the selection of measures. However, they do not report further details nor provide evidence of such assessments, neither in general nor specifically for the measures. The FRMP Eastern Cantabrian, ES017, also reports that no transboundary measures are planned and thus no cost-benefit assessment of such measures has been undertaken. ...flood extent Strong evidence The flood extent is described for each APSFR in the corresponding fiche. According to the reported information, the information on the flood extent has been used to define the measures. ...flood conveyance Strong evidence In the APSFR online viewer, conveyance routes are reflected. No reference to conveyance routes is provided in the FRMP summary of the APSFRs for Galicia, ES014. In the FRMPs for the Eastern Cantabrian (ES017), Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060) and Júcar (ES080), conveyance routes were not explicitly mentioned as an element of the APSFRs at the PFRA phase, but reference is made to river beds, which can be considered as one, albeit obvious, conveyance route. …water retention Some evidence Natural Water Retention Measures – e.g. for river restoration – are included in the FRMPs assessed, though detailed description and target indicator values are often not available; moreover, few NWRMs have been included so far in the budgets for the implementation of the measures of the FRMPs. ...environmental objectives of the WFD Some evidence The FRMPs refer to the necessary coordination between the FRMPs and RBMPs, and the obligation to foster the achievement of the WFD objectives, which often leads to the selection of sustainable solutions, like NWRM including sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS). In detail, the overlap between Flood Risk Areas and water bodies has been assessed, and in particular a summary of their status and objectives of each water body included. ...spatial planning/land use Some evidence All five FRMPs assessed include references to land use, as well as measures to improve coordination and to align - in particular urban, but also forestry - land use with the risks identified, preventing further damages. ...nature conservation Some evidence A limited number of measures refer to either biodiversity (among the FRMPs assessed, the Balearic Islands, ES110, includes measures to protect coastal dunes); nature conservation (Júcar, ES080 includes maintenance of natural reefs); or environmental improvement (Eastern Cantabrian, ES017). ...navigation/port infrastructure No evidence All FRMPs assessed make a brief reference that they shall take into consideration navigation and port infrastructure. However, there is no specific measure targeting these ...likely impact of climate change Some evidence The FRMPs refer to climate change scenarios of IPCC and other bodies, some in specific chapters on the topic. These FRMPs show clear trends for the overall decrease in precipitation, but unclear or different trends related to daily maxima of rainfall. Given these uncertainties, all FRMPs include a measure to develop further studies on the effects of climate change on flood risk, as current information is judged as insufficient. They also include measures to improve weather forecasting Coordination with other countries ensured in the RBD/UoM Some evidence The one FRMP assessed that is part of an international UoM (Eastern Cantabrian, ES017) mentions the 2006 Toulouse Agreement between Spain and France on water management but does not provide details on coordination, despite the fact that a joint APSFR has been identified. Coordination ensured with WFD Some evidence The FRMPs refer to the necessity of coordination between the FRMPs and RBMPs, and the obligation to foster the achievement of the WFD objectives Active involvement of interested parties Some evidence During the drafting process of FRMPs, working groups were established with public institutions for better coordination, and information days were held in some UoMs. The FRMPs do not include a summary of the effect of the consultation. Good practices The assessment identified the following good practices in the Spanish FRMPs assessed. Table 3 Good practices in the Spanish FRMPs Topic area Good practices identified Integration of previously reported information in the FRMPs. Two of the five FRMPs assessed (Galicia, ES014, and Eastern Cantabrian, ES017) included explicit information about changes in APSFRs and FHRMs. All five FRMPs assessed included printed maps of the distribution of flood risk areas within the UoM as well as internet links to maps of all APSFRs. The Eastern Cantabrian FRMP (ES017) presents maps for each of the APSFRs in the FRMP. Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk. The objectives of the FRMPs were discussed with stakeholders before their establishment. In one of the five FRMPs assessed (Júcar, ES080), more detailed “specific” objectives associate the “general” objectives of the FRMPs with the APSFRs, and provide further detail for some of them (e.g. “Improve predictive capacity in flood and flood situations at the Elche dam and review its flood management protocols”). The FRMPs and the reporting sheets refer to coordination activities with national authorities (e.g. the Ministries for Public Works related to infrastructure construction and drainage, and for Economy and Competitiveness related to research and innovation), including for their specific measures in the Plans. Planning/implementing of measures and their prioritization for the achievement of objectives. Almost all measures are specific and measurable. All five of the FRMPs assessed include a clear and explicit description of what measures are trying to achieve, where, how and by when. The geographic reference is either UoM, APSFR or other, more specific (e.g. list of weirs to be removed in Júcar, ES080): for measures with a specific location, the description usually is detailed, such as providing a figure in km or other specifics. This level of geographic detail can be considered as a good practice. Natural Water Retention Measures – e.g. for river restoration - are included in the five FRMPs assessed, though detailed descriptions and target indicator values are often not available. For the five FRMPs assessed, progress in the implementation of planned measures is tracked via monitoring indicators, including quantitative baselines and targets; however, information is not provided for all the indicators. Climate change All five FRMPs assessed include a measure to develop further studies on the effects of climate change on flood risk. Reference to the National Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation is made in four of the five FRMPs assessed. Use of cost-benefit analysis in the FRMPs assessed Cost benefit analysis is reported to be used as a criterion for the prioritisation of measures. Public participation. Technical coordination meetings with authorities, prior to the release of the draft FRMPs for consultation were held in at least four of the five UoMs whose FRMPs were assessed. The FRMPs include extensive information in their Annexes describing in detail the texts of comments received during consultation and the responses of the administrations. Flood risk governance. The FRMPs include extensive information in the Annexes describing in detail the text of comments received and the response texts of the administrations. Strategic Environmental Assessments were prepared for all five FRMPs assessed. In some cases, a joint Strategic Environmental Assessment has been undertaken for the RBMPs and FRMPs (Eastern Cantabrian, ES017; Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060; Júcar, ES080). Areas for further development The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the Spanish FRMPs assessed. Table 4 Areas for further development in the Spanish FRMPs Topic area Areas for further development identified Integration of previously reported information in the FRMPs. There is limited information in the FRMPs on how the FHRMs have been used to prioritise measures. For one FRMPs assessed (Júcar, ES080), no internet link for APSFR maps is provided. Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk. The objectives are not measurable and do not specify targets to be achieved. The decision-making process for prioritization of the objectives is not described in detail in the FRMPs, and therefore the transparency of this process is not fully guaranteed (no evidence in the FRMPs). Planning/implementation of measures and their prioritization or the achievement of objectives. The FRMPs assessed do not consistently describe in detail either the measures, or the cost elements which are considered for the FRMP budget. Nature based solutions have only been considered very marginally in the FRMPs. It is not clear how measures will contribute to the objectives, nor by how much. The FRMPs include almost only effort (output) indicators and few impact indicators, these usually without target values for 2021; therefore, the progress in achieving the objectives will be difficult to measure. Consideration of climate change in the FRMPs assessed. Due to the lack and contradictions of previously existing information and studies, no clear likely impact of climate change has been identified for daily maxima of rainfalls. In consequence, no further consideration of climate change impacts has been included in the FRMPs and the establishment of measures: measures only develop further and more conclusive studies on this topic. Coordination between FRMPs and the national climate change adaptation strategy appears not to be systematic. Use of cost-benefit analysis in the FRMPs assessed. The cost-benefit assessment for measures is not documented in the FRMPs, and such assessments are expected to be applied only for structural measures and during the implementation phase of FRMPs. Public participation. The number of comments received during the consultation has been quite low in general. This might be due to low interest or understanding from public, or as a sign of approval regarding the contents of the FRMP. International issues in flood risk management. For the one FRMP assessed that is part of an international UoM (Eastern Cantabrian, ES017), no maps have been presented for the whole international UoM (ES017-FRF), including joint flood risk areas in France and Spain. Recommendations

Based on the reported information and the FRMPs assessed, the following recommendations are made to enhance flood risk management (not listed in any particular order): ·The process of prioritization of objectives should be better explained and documented, e.g. explaining which institutions and stakeholders have taken part in it, and which reasons have been argued to decide on high or low priorities for the different objectives. ·The achievement of the objectives of the FRMPs should be measurable to the extent possible to be able to assess progress. ·For measures, indicators of progress should be developed and linked to measurable objectives. ·A stronger emphasis should be placed upon the introduction of nature based solutions (including NWRM). ·The methodology for assessing measures in terms of costs and benefits as well as its application and results of this analysis should be presented. ·The prioritization of the measures should be more transparent and better documented. ·Climate change should be considered, including better integration of and more systematic references to the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.



1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1. Reporting of the FRMP Spain has reported 17 out of 25 FRMPs. The eight missing FRMPs refer to ES100 (Catalonia) and the seven UoMs of the Canary Islands (ES120 to 127). Spain did not make use of Article 13.3 of the Floods Directive, which allows Member States to make use of previous flood risk management plans (provided their content is equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive). Concerning the geographic coverage of the FRMPs, there is one FRMP covering each entire UoM. In addition, other documents have been reported for some of the UoMs as annexes and/or background documents. 1.2. Assessment of the FRMP In Spain some river basin districts (RBDs)/UoMs are managed at a national level and others are managed at regional level (i.e. at the Autonomous Community level). The nationally managed UoMs assessed are: Table 5 Nationally managed UoMs assessed UoM code UoM Name ES017 EASTERN CANTABRIAN ES080 JUCAR

The regionally managed UoMs assessed are: Table 6 Regionally managed UoMs assessed UoM code UoM Name ES014 GALICIAN COAST ES060 ANDALUSIAN MEDITERRANEAN BASINS ES110 BALEARIC ISLANDS However, the regional Basque Country authority has taken an active role in the development of the FRMP for the Eastern Cantabrian, ES017, which therefore has a somewhat different content than other FRMPs of inter-regional (and thus nationally managed) UoMs. Nationally managed basins/UoMs are expected to take a consistent approach: for this reason, one national FRMP significantly affected by floods (Júcar, ES080) and four UoMs managed at regional level (ES014 for Galicia; Eastern Cantabrian, ES017 for the Basque country; Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060 for Andalusia; and ES110 for the Balearic Islands) were chosen for the assessment. As neither Catalonia (ES100) nor the Canary Islands (ES120 to ES127) had reported FRMPs at the time of the assessment, it was assumed that all methodological approaches reported at the time by Spain were covered by this assessment.



2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment The conclusions of the PRFA are presented in the FRMP for all five FRMPs assessed. This includes a summary map showing areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFRs). All FRMPs assessed also had a textual description which includes tables listing the APSFRs, the methodology employed and the results of previous steps. The information varies in detail and is shorter for Galicia (ES014) than for the other UoMs assessed. Links to maps of the APSFRs have been provided as URLs in the FRMPs for three UoMs – Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060 and Balearic Islands, ES110 and Galicia, ES014 (however, in an Annex) – but not for the Eastern Cantabrian, ES017 or the Júcar, ES080, although for both of these overview maps are included in the FRMP. No reference to conveyance routes is included in the FRMP summary of the APSFRs for Galicia, ES014. In the FRMPs for Eastern Cantabrian (ES017), Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060) and Júcar (ES080), conveyance routes are not explicitly mentioned as an element of the APSPFR but reference is made to river beds, which can be considered as one, albeit obvious, conveyance route. 2.1.1Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment The only international UoM analysed in detail is Eastern Cantabrian, ES017, which includes catchments shared with France. Its only shared APSFR is ES017-GIP-BID-01 between France and Spain. However, the map included in FRMP for this UoM is unclear, and it does not appear that a shared APSFR and map have been elaborated. Annex 5 of the FRMP for the Eastern Cantabrian UoM indicates that there is an overall coordination agreement (the 2006 Toulouse agreement) and that information exchange and cooperation have taken place, but no specific description of the exchanges is provided. 2.1.2Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHR maps There is no specific information available in the reporting sheets (across all 17 FRMPs reported), regarding the ways which the PFRA was used in developing the flood hazard and flood risk (FHR) maps. Across the five FRMPs assessed, two FRMPs (Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060, and Balearic Islands, ES110) did not provide specific information. For the three other FRMPs assessed, information is provided, but not always with sufficient detail to understand the links: ·The FRMP for Galicia, ES014, explains that the preparation of FHR maps was based on the previous PFRA and it assessed the identified areas with more detail.

·The FRMP for Eastern Cantabrian, ES017, refers to the two steps but does not describe the links in detail. ·In the Júcar FRMP, ES080, a clear reference is provided for FHR maps being based on the PFRA, but no conclusions are included in the FRMP regarding the evolution of APSFRs in between the two assessment steps. 2.2Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs The flood hazard and flood risk maps have been presented in one of the five FRMPs assessed (Eastern Cantabrian, ES017). This FRMP includes maps for each APSFR, where the coastal and fluvial flood risks are reflected; the methodology informs furthermore that separate studies have been undertaken for floods from both sources and the APSFR is represented as the combined area of both individual sources. In the Galicia FRMP (ES014), a table of fluvial and coastal APSFRs is presented, but no maps. The FRMPs for the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060), Júcar (ES080), and Balearic Islands (ES110) do not include APSFR-specific maps in the FRMP itself or the corresponding annexes/appendixes. Links to the flood hazard and flood risk maps have been provided in the FRMPs in some but not all FRMPs assessed. Specifically: ·FRMP for Galicia, ES014: internet links for maps are provided in Annex 1, page 34, which refers to http://www.cmati.xunta.es/ide-dhgc/ and the National flood risk mapping system http://sig.magrama.es/snczi/ ·FRMP for Eastern Cantabrian, ES017: maps of the APSFR are at http://www.uragentzia.euskadi.net/u81-0003/es/contenidos/informacion/mapas-de-peligrosidad-y-riesgo-cantabrico-oriental-en-el-ambito-de-las-cuencas-internas-de-la-capv/demarcacion-cantabrico-oriental/es_docu/demarcacion-cantabrico-oriental.html http://www.chcantabrico.es/index.php/es/actuaciones/dph/evaluacion-y-gestion-de-los-riesgos-de-inundacion/mapas-de-peligrosidad-y-riesgo/dh-del-cantabrico-oriental ·FRMP for Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060: reference to the map viewer is provided http://www.cma.junta-andalucia.es/medioambiente/site/portalweb/ ·FRMP for Júcar, ES080: general link to the National System ( http://sig.magrama.es/snczi/ ) ·Balearic Islands, ES110: Links are not provided to a map, but to fiches of the fluvial FRAs: http://www.caib.es/sacmicrofront/archivopub.do?ctrl=MCRST259ZI158962&id=158962

And of the coastal FRAs: http://www.caib.es/sacmicrofront/archivopub.do?ctrl=MCRST259ZI158964&id=158964 http://www.caib.es/sacmicrofront/archivopub.do?ctrl=MCRST259ZI158965&id=158965 Floods from pluvial, groundwater and artificial water bearing infrastructure sources have not been identified in the UoMs assessed; The FRMPs do not include references to these flood sources. None of these sources had been identified in the previous FHRM phase. 2.2.1 Maps for shared flood risk areas Flood hazard and flood risk maps have not been prepared for flood risk areas shared with other Member States, in the one transboundary river basin/UoM assessed. As noted above, the only shared APSFR is ES017-GIP-BID-01 between France and Spain. However, the map included in the FRMP for the Eastern Cantabrian, ES017 (Annex 1), is unclear, and it does not appear that a shared map has been elaborated. This FRMP does refers to information exchange, without being specific on the moment or content of such exchanges. Neither the FRMP’s main nor its Annex 5 (on information exchange) refers to active transboundary cooperation on the preparation of the maps. The reporting sheets (for the Eastern Cantabrian, ES017, and the Adour-Garonne UoM in France, FRF) and the FRMP for the Eastern Cantabrian, ES017 (main document), do not include information on this topic.



2.2.2Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps In all the FRMPs, Flood hazard and risk maps (FHRMs) have been used to develop the FRMPs. Based on the reporting sheets and the FRMPs assessed: ·FHRMs are used to set priorities for flood risk management (e.g. locations, economic activities, assets) ·FHRMs are used as a tool in the public participation process ·Measure types and locations have been defined based on the FHRM

The approach varies, however, across the FRMPs assessed and in general limited detail has been provided on how the FHRMs have been used to develop FRMPs. In general, all FRMPs refer in a standard text to the relevance of the FHRM exercise and its results for the definition of the FRMP. In three out of five assessed FRMPs (Galicia, ES014; Eastern Cantabrian, ES017; and Balearic Islands, ES110), the FHRMs have been used to prioritise the locations for flood risk measures. The other two assessed FRMPs do not provide conclusions on the use of the FHRMs for the development of FRMPs. For example: ·The Galicia (ES014) FRMP refers to an analysis carried out in the frame of the FRMP drafting on which measures would be applicable to each of the APSFRs and the FRMP page 35 refers to the maps being submitted to public consultation. ·The Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) FRMP refers to the FHRMs as a basis for considering measures with criteria of benefit and sustainability. In the chapter referring to the FHRMs, but not its conclusion, the FRMP states briefly that the results of the mapping exercise help to prioritize measures both within one flood risk areas and between flood risk areas. ·The FRMP for the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060, only provides a list of the APSFRs without defining other type of conclusions. ·The Júcar (ES080) FRMP does not provide conclusions from the FHRM exercise. ·The FRMP for the Balearic Islands, ES110: Chapter 4.5 includes a summary description of the assessment, providing overall data on the population or economy affected, etc. and states that the exercise has determined the measures and priorities for the implementation; but does not specify how the results influence objectives or measures in detail. The FRAs with the highest risks have been prioritised for the implementation of measures. 2.3Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas Any changes in the identification of Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk since December 2011 should be reflected in the FRMP. Out of the five FRMPs assessed, three (Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060; Júcar, ES080; and Balearic Islands, ES110) do not provide details regarding possible changes to the APSFRs due to increased information, knowledge and understanding. However, in two FRMPs such references have been found and they cite changes in the number of flood risk areas (in particular for floods from coastal sources: Galicia, ES014) and the maps combining flood risks from different sources (Eastern Cantabrian, ES017). In detail: ·The Galicia (ES014) FRMP refers to the fact that the number of preliminary coastal APSFRs increased from 39 to 42, due to a better simulation of flood risks, however, according to the FRMP, 14 of these do not present real flood risks. ·The Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) FRMP refers to changes in the APSFRs due to coastal sources, where new areas have been included and others discarded due to the additional information available. Furthermore, for APSFRs with combined sources, these have been reflected in a map as a “combined area”. ·The Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060) FRMP does not provide any insights concerning possible changes. ·The Júcar (ES080) FRMP: Chapter 4 describes the methodology and results of the different risk factors considered (including surface area, depth, velocity, response time, sediment transport, obstacles in conveyance route) but does not inform about possible changes due to improved knowledge base. ·The Balearic Islands (ES110) FRMP does not provide any insights concerning possible changes No information was found regarding in the FRMPs whether any changes were made regarding the preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps since December 2013 (the Directive’s deadline for the FHRMs). 2.4Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps The FHRM assessment identified the following substantive areas for further development for Spain: ·Several FHRMs were reported to be still under development. ·It was not clear whether Emergency Actions plans for dams already correspond to the requirements of the Directive, if not whether Spain considered adapting those plans to the Directive’s requirements. None of these areas for further development are explicitly addressed within the FRMPs assessed or the reporting in the time period between publication of the FHRMs and the assessment of the FRMPs. Nonetheless, the following information has been found: ·For the FRMPs assessed, the FHRMs had been completed – however, information was not available regarding the FRMPs not reported: Catalonia (ES100) and the Canary Islands (ES120 to ES127).

·Emergency Action Plans are mentioned as measures of the FRMPs, coordinated by the corresponding competent authorities. 2.5Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information The following good practices were identified: ·Inclusion in two FRMPs (Galicia, ES014, and Eastern Cantabrian, ES017) of explicit information about changes in the APSFRs and FHRMs. ·Inclusion of printed maps of the distribution of APSFRs within the UoM as well as internet links to maps of all APSFRs. The Eastern Cantabrian FRMP (ES017) presents maps for each of the APSFRs in the FRMP. The following areas for further development were identified: ·For one FRMP assessed (Júcar, ES080), no internet links to AFPSFR maps are provided. ·There is limited detail in the FRMPs on how the FHRMs have been used for the development of FRMPs. · 3 Setting of Objectives 3.1Focus of objectives The eight general objectives of all FRMPs in Spain are: ·Increase perception of flood risk and self-protection strategies by the population, social and economic agents; ·Improve administrative coordination among all actors involved in risk management; ·Improve knowledge for adequate flood risk management; ·Improve predictive capacity in flood and flood situations; ·Contribute to improving spatial planning and management of exposure in flood areas; ·Achieve a reduction, as far as possible, of the risk by reducing the danger to human health, economic activities, cultural heritage and the environment in flood areas; ·Improve resilience and reduce the vulnerability of elements located in flood areas; ·Contribute to the improvement of the water body status, and coordination with the WFD.

These objectives apply to the five FRMPs assessed. Consequently, in the FRMPs assessed: ·The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods; ·The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding; ·The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented; ·The objectives refer to non-structural measures. 3.2Specific and measurable objectives In Spain, objectives are neither specific nor measurable. The “general” objectives for the FRMPs are not specific on what they are trying to achieve (not quantitative or measurable), where they are to be achieved, and by when they are expected to be achieved. There is some information available how they are to be achieved. In all FRMPs assessed, indicators are provided associated to measures, but not associated directly to the objectives (note there is not a direct and explicit relationship between objectives and measures, as the measures contribute usually to several objectives). Almost exclusively, they are effort (output) indicators (e.g. number of so-called “management agreements” undertaken to carry jointly out certain measures), and not impact indicators. The indicators are defined for 2015 (baseline) and 2021 (targets). Furthermore, such targets are not defined for all measures (e.g. Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060, FRMP): many of the indicators listed (in the template provided to the UoM authorities by the National authorities) “do not apply” or are “not defined”. In some UoMs (so far out of the assessed UoMs, only developed for Júcar, ES080), more detailed “specific” objectives associate the general objectives with the APSFRs, and provide further detail for some of them (e.g. “Improve predictive capacity in flood and flood situations at the Elche dam and review its flood management protocols”). 3.3Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods In the FRMPs assessed, objectives do not provide further specification of the type of adverse consequences that will be reduced. As mentioned previously, the objectives are rather general and do not specify the targets to be achieved. None of the many indicators established for measures focus on impacts, but rather on efforts. 3.4Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding The objectives aim to reduce the vulnerability and risk to flooding; however, without further specification. 3.5Process for setting the objectives Each of the five FRMPs assessed sets out priorities by ranking the eight general objectives determined nationwide (see above) for the specific circumstances of the UoM. The FRMPs and the reporting sheets also refer to coordination activities between different national authorities (as the Ministry for Public Works, related to infrastructure construction and drainage, and the Ministry for Economy and Competitiveness, related to research and innovation). All FRMPs have undergone a consultation process. 3.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives The following good practices were identified: ·The objectives of the FRMPs were coordinated at national or regional level and discussed with stakeholders before their establishment ·In one of the UoMs assessed (Júcar, ES080), more detailed “specific” objectives associate the “general” objectives of the FRMPs with the APSFRs, and provide further detail for some of them (e.g. “Improve predictive capacity in flood and flood situations at the Elche dam and review its flood management protocols”). ·The FRMPs and the reporting also refer to coordination activities between the different national authorities (e.g. the Ministries for Public Works related to infrastructure construction and drainage, and Economy and Competitiveness related to research and innovation), including their specific measures in the Plans. The following areas for further development were identified:

·The objectives are not measurable and do not specify the targets to be achieved. ·The decision-making process for prioritization of the objectives is not described in detail in the FRMPs.



4 Planned measures for the achievement of objectives For all UoMs that have been reported (17 UoMs), including the five UoMs whose FRMPs have been assessed, the total number of individual measures is 192, and the number of aggregated measures is 1 171. In consequence, the total number of measures is 1 363 (the FRMPs do not explain how individual and aggregated measures are defined). The average number of measures per UoM is 80, with a range between 49 and 156 measures per UoM. The 17 FRMPs reported each contain most of the measure types defined. However, prevention measures of types 22 are only present in some of the UoMs. Moreover, the measure types 35, and 52 are not included in any of the FRMPs of the Spanish UoMs. For all 17 UoMs reported, in terms of the number of measures associated, Protection measures are in the majority, with 404 measures (30 %). These are followed by Preparedness (358 measures or 26 %), Prevention (327 measures or 24 %) and Recovery and review measures (274 measures or 20 %). Please see Annex A for tables and charts on measures for this and subsequent questions in this section. 4.1Cost of measures UoM Estimated overall budget of planned measures

(2015-2021) in EUR ES080 74.5 m ES110 5.42 m ES017 137.17 m ES014 67.86 m ES060 - Source: Reporting sheets and FRMP For the five FRMPs assessed, the expected costs or budget for implementing the measures are very different for the UoMs, as shown above. Its distribution amongst the categories of Prevention, Protection, Preparedness and Recovery is also very different, with Prevention ranging from 22-78 %, Protection from 14-62 %, Preparedness from 5-19 % and Recovery from 0-16 % of the total FRMP budget for the UoM. For the FRMPs assessed, some present an overall cost forecast or budget, whilst the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins FRMP (ES060) only presents these for the separate measures and does not provide an overview. ·The Júcar (ES080) FRMP describes the following budget distribution: Prevention 31%, Protection 34 %, Preparedness 19 %, and Recovery 16 % ·The Balearic Islands ES110 FRMP includes the following proportional distribution of the total budget: Prevention 78,25 %, Protection 14,37 %, and Preparedness 7,38 %. No budget foreseen for Recovery. According to the Galicia (ES014) FRMP, the distribution is Prevention 22,95 %, Protection 62,43 %, Preparedness 5,78 % and Recovery 8,84 %. ·The FRMP for Galicia (ES014) states that part of the budget included in the FRMP will not necessarily be executed. This is due to the fact that flood investments are risk-related, and might not necessarily occur ·The Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) FRMP includes a different presentation of the budget to the other UoMs assessed, with no overall figure specified, but figures (in million EUR) for the first two planning cycles (2015-2021, 2021-2027) referring to the four areas: Prevention first: 16.59M EUR, second: 9.32M EUR, Protection first: 98.73, second: 269.5, Preparedness first: 11.05, second: 0. Recovery and evaluation: first 10.8,second: 0. ·In the FRMP for the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060, no budget has been identified overall, and figures are only available measure by measure. The FRMPs assessed do not describe in detail either the measures, or the cost elements which are considered for the FRMP’s budget.

4.2Funding of measures All five FRMPs assessed explain that the majority of the budget will be covered by the national and regional competent and cooperating authorities, as well as from local authorities, most of these co-funded by EU budgets (structural and cohesion funds, agricultural and fishery funds, social funds, according to the Partnership Agreement and its priorities). Some of the measures do not require “additional budget”, as they are considered core activities of the Spanish administration already. Private sources might come from activities under the corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities of private foundations. ES080 ES017 ES014 ES110 ES060 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 European Social Fund ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs 4.3Measurable and specific (including location) measures All FRMPs assessed include a clear and explicit description of the measures with regard to: ·What they are trying to achieve, ·Where they are to be achieved, ·How they are to be achieved, and ·By when they are expected to be achieved. In general, the FRMPs include information on the measures which refer to their location (it can be the whole UoM or other more detailed locations), the timeframe for the implementation, the budget, the responsible authority and indicators for management. However, not all the information is provided for all measures; the gaps relate particularly to the budget (for measures considered as those which are already being carried out by the authorities in the frame of flood-related policies). In addition, the descriptions of the measures remain rather brief for example “Development and implementation of the river conservation programme” (Júcar, ES080) or for “agreements with third parties” (Balearic Islands, ES110). In the Spanish FRMPs assessed, measures are presented with a standard template table, with key information such as responsible administration, time for implementation (start, end), budget, location/geographic scope. However, it should be noted that the information in the tables is rather limited. The measures indicate one of three levels of location: National, RBD/UoM and APSFR (or more detailed than a single water body). All UoMs assessed International National ✔ RBD/UoM ✔ Sub-basin APSFR or other specific risk area ✔ Water body level More detailed than water body ✔ Source: Reporting sheets Almost all measures are specific and measurable. As stated before, for measures with a detailed location, the description usually is more detailed in terms of providing a figure in kilometres, etc. The geographic reference is either UoM, APSFR or more specific (e.g. list of weirs to be removed in Júcar, ES080). There are no differences between the assessed UoMs regarding the level of specificity of the measures. 4.4Measures 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 measures have associated indicators that monitor the effort, but not the impact. Additionally, the (general) objectives established in the FRMPs are not measurable (see section 3 above). For these reasons, it is not possible to assess progress against objectives. 4.5Geographic coverage/scale of measures

For all 17 UoMs reported prior to 2017, with 1 363 measures reported, 857 apply to the whole UoM, and 503 to an APSFR. Three measures target more specific locations. Whilst the majority of measures addressing Prevention, Preparedness and Recovery target the UoM, the majority of measures addressing Protection are foreseen at the APSFR level. For further data, see Tables A6 and A7 in Annex A. While Spain reported on the geographic scale of measures, it did not report information on the geographic coverage of the expected impact of measures. 4.6Prioritisation of measures The vast majority of measures are categorised as either of very high or critical priority, especially for preparedness and prevention measures. Protection measures are the lowest in the scoring of the number of critical measures, whilst there are most critical measures for Prevention, followed by Preparedness and Recovery. The only measures categorised as low (one measure) or moderate (five measures) are protection measures. It is worth noting that the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060, has the highest proportion of critical priority measures of all UoMs. For further data on all 17 UoMs, please see Tables 8 and 9 in Annex A. The five FRMPs assessed do not include summaries on the distribution of the number of measures according to the priorities. The summary of the Programme of Measures in the FRMPs refers to the main priorities in text form or table form for the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060) FRMP; and Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) FRMP (referring only to Structural Measures); Júcar (ES080) FRMP; Balearic Islands (ES110) FRMP; the Galicia (ES014) FRMP, indicating the priority measures. These summaries do not, however, include the full priority classification for critical, very high, high, moderate and low priorities. According to the FRMPs assessed, the prioritisation of measures has followed four criteria: 1)a ranking of the objectives according to their relevance, developed in some of the UoMs explicitly (e.g. Galicia, ES014) after technical and stakeholder meetings, 2)a cost-benefit assessment of the measures (which is not further described), 3)a comparison of the geographical extent of the measure implementation, prioritising those measures that cover a wider geographical range, 4)beneficial links with the implementation of related EU legislation, in particular the Water Framework Directive. All the FRMPs assessed and the reporting summaries include the same standard text, referring to the fact that similarity of the prioritisation results under criteria 1 and 2 are similar for the UoMs. No details are provided on the discussions at the meetings for fixing criteria 1, nor the cost benefit assessment of the measures. For the five FRMPs assessed, the timetable for the implementation of the measures is provided within the FRMPs, and specifies the start and end month and year, in the first planning cycle. Most of the measures will be implemented in the 2015-2021 period, with a target to be achieved in 2021. In general, the majority of measures refers to six years of implementation; this indication is however not based on a detailed assessment. There does not seem to be an immediately clear relationship between the timetable and the priorities. 4.7Authorities responsible for implementation of measures For all 17 FRMPs reported, Spain reports that national authorities (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and the Environment, Ministry for Public Works) are responsible for the implementation of the majority of measures (760 measures), regional authorities are responsible for the implementation of 337 measures, local/municipal authorities are responsible for the implementation of 37 measures, and other bodies for the implementation of 229 measures. Note that the UoM authorities are either national or regional (see the overview for details). Across the four measure aspects (Prevention, Protection, Preparedness, Recovery), the national authorities are in all cases responsible for the highest number of measures. However, local authorities play a more significant role dealing with prevention measures compared to other types of measures, and other bodies (such as research institutes, e.g. as identified in Eastern Cantabrian, ES017) for measures for preparedness. This observation relates to the number of measures rather than the budget. For further information, please see Tables A10 and A11 of Annex A. 4.8Progress of implementation of measures For all 17 FRMPs reported, the vast majority of the measures are on-going for all aspects, either as process or construction. Regarding protection measures, approximately 25 % of them has not yet started, and also a significant proportion (approx. 10 %) of recovery measures has not yet started. No measures have been completed so far. For further information, please see Tables A12 and A13 of Annex A. 4.9Measures taken under other Community Acts Member States were asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure has been implemented: Spain has reported this information for all FRMPs assessed. All FRMPs refer to the RBMPs under the WFD, and in the case of Balearic Islands, ES110, also to coastal and maritime protection (referring to the Spanish Coastal Law). Several protection measures refer to civil protection measures, e.g. Galicia, ES014, and Eastern Cantabrian, ES017. For Spain, 159 different reported measures are reported under other Community Acts. Note however, that the legislation reported includes National or Regional acts for example covering urban land use management, forestry and road infrastructure, without providing any corresponding references to the EU act. It also refers to Horizon 2020, under the research policy of the EU.

4.10Specific groups of measures With regard to spatial planning/land use measures, the following types of measures are included in the five FRMPs assessed: a)Administrative coordination for construction in the floodplains, according to the compulsory reports by UoM authorities for urban development plans; b)Adoption of regional and urban regulation of land use limitations in the “areas of preferential flows” (a possible synonym for “conveyance routes”) and floodplains; c)Adoption of protocols and agreements between authorities; d)Coordination of flood risk information in the map viewers; e)Adaptation of urban planning; f)Development of technical construction guidance documents to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience against floods in buildings, agricultural holdings and networks; g)Training and awareness raising campaigns on the measures addressing vulnerability. The framework has evolved since 2000. According to Art.11 of the Water Law, the UoM authorities transfer information on floodplains and flood risk to municipalities for consideration in urban planning. Further regulation and limitations can be established by the national and regional governments. Art. 15 of Royal Decree 903/2010 (Evaluation and management of flood risk) establishes that urban planning has to respect the regulatory elements of FRMPs and shall recognise the rural character of flood risk areas. Annex A includes the adaptation of urban planning to FRMPs in the list of measures. Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in some, but not all, of the five FRMPs assessed. Natural water retention measures are mentioned explicitly in the summary reporting of the FRMPs (although no detailed explanation is given). The following specific measures have been identified in the FRMPs assessed, with only one NWRM (flood mitigation area in Júcar, ES080) explicitly planned: ·The Galicia (ES014) FRMP establishes within the indicators that in 2015 no NWRM was implemented in the UoM, and that the target indicator for 2022 is still to be determined. ·The Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) FRMP includes in Annex 2 information on NWRM including some schema on possible types for bio-retention (unclear which NWRM category). However, the FRMP page 200 indicates that the target indicator for NWRM is “not applicable”, thus it remains uncertain if such measures will be implemented. The relevance of floodplain conservation has been assessed. ·The FRMP for the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060) explains that a 2 m€ budget is foreseen for the first planning cycle for river restoration projects including NWRM (category Nature, hydrology-forestry and agro-hydrology). However, the indicator table on NWRM is blank regarding the status and target. ·The Júcar FRMP (ES080) Annex 2 includes a measure “Área de laminación en el Barranco Hondo” (Flood mitigation area in the Barranco Hondo creek; unclear which NWRM category) ·The Balearic Islands (ES110) FRMP includes the preparation of river restoration projects including aspects of NWRM (category N), however, no specific reference has been found to underpin that such measures will be implemented. Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. All five FRMPs assessed refer in a generic manner to biodiversity, e.g. the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, by using a common text. At a more measure-specific level, the following references have been found: ·The FRMP for Galicia (ES014) refers to biodiversity in the measure description for river restoration measures. ·The FRMP for Eastern Cantabria (ES017) refers to Natura 2000 in the measure description of river restoration measures, e.g. referring to the competent authorities. Biodiversity is not referred to. ·The FRMP for the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060) refers to biodiversity in the frame of river restoration projects, as well as to Natura 2000 and the related regulatory references.

·The Júcar FRMP (ES080) - no reference has been found to biodiversity of Natura 2000. ·The FRMP for the Balearic Islands (ES110) neither refers to biodiversity nor to Natura 2000 when describing the measures. All five FRMPs assessed make a brief reference that they shall take into consideration navigation and port infrastructure. However, there are no measures specifically targeting these. No reference has been found in the five FRMPs assessed to dredging as a measure to increase the river channel capacity. It should however be noted that the RBMP for the Guadalquivir RBD (ES050) includes a justification of the Guadalquivir estuary dredging as a WFD Art.4(7) exemption, due to its benefits for flood risk reduction, listing this aspect as an important one for justifying overriding public interest. This measure is not listed in the FRMP but only in the RBMP (which does not further refer to the FRMP and its data). 4.11Recovery from and resilience to flooding The role of insurance policies is discussed in all five FRPMs assessed, with regard to the recovery from flooding, preparedness/resilience to flood or other issues. According to the data reported in the reporting sheets, insurance policies are included as recovery measures, for people and goods, and in particular the agricultural sector. This applies to all UoMs by means of the National Joint Insurance Compensation Agreement (Consorcio de Compensación de Seguros) and the National Entity for Agrarian Insurance (Entidad Estatal de Seguro Agrarios (ENESA)). With regard to the type of insurance available or to be developed for potential flooding areas, the information is briefly explained, but refers only to agrarian, agricultural and livestock subscription modules. With regard to the flood insurance for properties in all flood risk areas, and in particular in high flood risk areas, no information has been found on this specific detail in the five FRMPs assessed. Although “people and goods” are mentioned, there is only an explicit reference to “agricultural holdings” in terms of properties. No mention has been found to which type of risk areas the insurance would apply. No information was found whether insurance is conditional on making at risk properties (domestic, industrial) as flood resilient as possible, nor if environmental liability insurance cover the restoration costs arising from flooding of potentially polluting sites and installations. There is no detailed information about the costs and benefits of the measures included in the FRMPs assessed or their annexes, with regard to whether ecosystem services are considered in estimating restoration costs in cases where potentially polluting sites and installations may be flooded. 4.12Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMPs Progress in the implementation of planned measures is tracked via monitoring indicators: this is detailed in a specific chapter in all five FRMPs assessed. For each measure, the FRMP has a space to enter a numeric baseline, for the level before implementation of the measure, and a target/expected value upon its completion (e.g. kilometres of rivers or coastline, number of protocols, number of guidance documents, of regional regulation considering floods, percentage of dams with management plans). Planned dates for the completion of each measure are specified with month and year. However, not all indicators are fully filled in, and for some the FRMPs indicate that the target “needs to be determined” (e.g. number of NWRM). There are no differences between the FRMPs assessed. A baseline has been established against which progress will be monitored and assessed in all five FRMPs assessed. The baseline is often quantitative - for example stating how many municipal reports have already been emitted in 2015 or how many kilometres of coastline have been mapped regarding their flood risk - but it also refers to status descriptions like “regulation drafted pending approval”, “project pending approval”, “pending start” and “in drafting process, e.g. when referring to legislation or protocols”. In the FRMP for Galicia (ES014) several baselines are “to be determined”, which will hamper the assessment of progress. 4.13Coordination with the Water Framework Directive The table below shows how the development of the FRMP has been coordinated with the development of the second River Basin Management Plan of the WFD. ES014, ES017, ES060, ES110 ES080 Integration of FRMP and RBMP into a single plan Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP ✔ ✔ Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP ✔ ✔ Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD ✔ ✔ The objectives of the Floods Directive were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a ✔ ✔ Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in the FRMPs The RBMP’s PoMs include win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and NWRMs a ✔ ✔ Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence maintenance or construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and RBMPs Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included ✔ Consistent and compliant application of WFD Article 7 and designation of heavily modified water bodies with measures taken under the FD e.g. flood defence infrastructure The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, have been adapted to take into account WFD Environmental Objectives a ✔ ✔ The use of sustainable drainage systems, such as the construction of wetland and porous pavements, have been considered to reduce urban flooding and also to contribute to the achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives ✔ Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD The FRMPs assessed refer to the necessity of coordination between the FRMPs and RBMPs, and the obligation to foster the achievement of the WFD objectives, which often leads to the selection of sustainable solutions, like NWRM including sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) (note however that few NWRMs have been included so far in the budgets). In detail, the overlap between Flood Risk Areas and water bodies has been assessed, and in particular a summary of their status and objectives for each of the concerned water bodies. In three UoMs, out of the five whose FRMPs were assessed, a joint Strategic Environmental Assessment has been undertaken for the RBMPs and FRMPs (e.g. Eastern Cantabrian, ES017; Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060; Júcar, ES080). The authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP are the same for all UoMs assessed, so this coordination shall be ensured within the authorities. Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD is done by listing of the water bodies and their status and objectives in the FRMPs, and by considering the contribution as criteria for the prioritisation of measures.

4.14Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures The following good practices were identified: ·Almost all measures are specific and measurable. All five of the FRMPs assessed include a clear and explicit description of what measures are trying to achieve, where, how and by when. ·The geographic reference is either UoM, APSFR or other, more specific (e.g. list of weirs to be removed in Júcar, ES080): for measures with a specific location, the description usually is detailed, such as providing a figure in km or other specifics. This level of geographic detail can be considered as a good practice. ·Natural Water Retention Measures – e.g. for river restoration - are included in the five FRMPs assessed, though the detailed description and target indicator values are often not available. ·For the five FRMPs assessed, progress in the implementation of planned measures is tracked via monitoring indicators, including quantitative baselines and targets; however, information is not provided for all the indicators. The following areas for further development were identified: ·It is not clear how measures will contribute to the objectives, nor clear by how much. The FRMPs include almost exclusively effort (output) indicators only a few impact indicators, these usually without establishing target values for 2021; therefore, the progress in achieving the objectives will be difficult to measure. It is also not clear whether the objectives will be achieved, when all measures are completed. ·The FRMPs assessed do not describe in detail either the measures, or the cost elements which are considered for the FRMP budget. ·While NWRMs are mentioned in the summary reporting of the FRMPs, no explanation is given. There are some references to NWRMs (and one measure in Júcar, ES080 described under good practices), and the necessity of coordination between FRMPs and RBMPs is indicated as a reason for the selection of sustainable solutions. In practice, however, NWRMs have only been considered relatively very marginally in the FRMP.

· 5. Consideration of climate change The five FRMPs assessed refer to climate change scenarios of IPCC and other bodies. These show clear trends for the overall decrease in precipitation, but unclear or different trends related to daily maxima of rainfall. Given these uncertainties, all five FRMPs assessed include a measure to develop further studies on the effects of climate change on flood risk, as current information is judged as insufficient. In general, these “improvements” or “forward steps” of knowledge are scheduled for 2021 (FRMPs for Galicia, ES014; Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060; Balearic Islands, ES110), for “December 2021” (Júcar, ES080), or not specified. They also include measures to improve weather forecasting. However, it should be noted that the expected effects of climate change have not been clearly established in the FRMPs, due to the lack of (or contradiction among) previously existing studies. For this reason, no other measures than those for knowledge improvement have been included in the FRMPs. There is reference to the national Climate Change Adaption Strategy in some but not all five FRMPs assessed. These FRMPs mention studies on climate change, and the Spanish Office for Climate Change as an involved authority. Specifically, the FRMPs for Galicia (ES014), Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060), Júcar (ES080) and Balearic Islands (ES110) mention explicitly the National Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation, as a possible strategy to contribute to in synergy without further details. The timeframes for the climate change scenarios have not yet been considered. There is also no information available in the reporting sheets on reference to a shift in the occurrence of extreme events and changes in numerical recurrence times. No information was found in the reporting sheets or the FRMPs with regard to whether the main sources of flooding are expected to change under the long term climate change scenarios. 5.1Specific measures planned to address climate change With regard to measures to reduce pollution risk in flood prone zones, climate change is only mentioned explicitly in the FRMPs for measures regarding studies. This applies to all five FRMPs assessed. Climate change is not mentioned in the description of non-structural measures, including NWRMs, in the FRMPs assessed. No reference to climate change is found in the description of measures related to land use/spatial planning in the FRMPs assessed. No reference to climate change is found in the description of measures using economic instruments, according to the FRMPs assessed and the reporting sheets. No consideration of climate change is included in the measure descriptions of structural measures, according to the FRMPs assessed. 5.2Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change

The following good practices were identified: ·All five FRMPs assessed include a measure to develop further studies on the effects of climate change on flood risk. ·Reference to the National Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation in four of the five FRMPs assessed. The following area for further development was identified: ·Due to the lack and contradictions of previously existing information and studies, no clear likely impact of climate change has been identified. In consequence, no further consideration of climate change impacts was included in the FRMPs and the establishment of measures. ·Coordination between FRMPs and the national climate change adaptation strategy is not systematic.



6. Cost-benefit analysis The five FRMPs assessed refer to cost benefit as a criterion for the establishment of priorities for the selection of measures. However, they do not report further details nor provide evidence of such assessments, neither in general nor specifically for the measures. It is unclear from the FRMPs assessed for which types of measures cost-benefit analysis has been used, and no information was found in the reporting sheets or the FMRPs assessed indicating whether the method used multi-benefits. The FRMP for Eastern Cantabrian, ES017, reports that no transboundary measures are planned and thus no cost-benefit assessment of measures with transnational effects has been undertaken, according to the reporting sheets. 6.1Good practices and areas for further development The following good practice was identified: ·Cost benefit analysis is reported to be used as a criterion for the prioritisation of measures. The following area for further development was identified: ·The cost-benefit assessment for measures is not documented in the FRMPs, and such assessments are expected to be applied only for structural measures and during the implementation phase of FRMPs.



7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation 7.1Competent authorities Based on the FRMPs and the information provided in the reporting sheets, the Competent Authorities and the Units of Management identified for the Floods Directive have not changed recently. No new documents on the matter have been submitted to the European Commission since 2010.

7.2Public information and consultation The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the five UoMs assessed concerning the draft FRMPs. Information on how the consultation was actually carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section: ES014 ES017 ES060 ES080 ES110 Media (papers, TV, radio) Internet ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Digital social networking Printed material ✔ Direct mailing Invitations to stakeholders ✔ ✔ Local Authorities Meetings ✔ ✔ Source: FRMP For all five RBMPs assessed, information was provided via the Internet: ·The Eastern Cantabrian, ES017 FRMP states that the website was used, and two workshops were held during the consultation, and includes a list of the stakeholders that were invited to attend the meetings. ·The Júcar, ES080 FRMP reports on information days, workshops and expert meetings as well as factsheets in the preparatory steps of FD implementation; however, it is not clear if this activity refers to the consultation of the FRMP. ·Balearic Islands, ES110 FRMP does not provide details on the consultation process. The table below shows how the actual consultation was carried out: ES014 ES017 ES060 ES080 ES110 Via Internet ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Via digital social networking Direct invitation Exhibitions Workshops, seminars or conferences Telephone surveys Direct involvement in drafting FRMP ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Postal written comments ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Source: FRMP For all five FRMPs assessed, consultation was reported as being carried out via written text to the competent authority. For four of the five FRMPs consultation was carried out via Internet as well: ·The FRMP for Galicia (ES014) states that in the implementation phase of the plan, information days, workshops and expert meetings as well as factsheets will be organised to stimulate the FRMP implementation; and four information meetings were held in November 2017 (after the adoption of the Plans). There are no such reported activities for the consultation phase of the draft FRMP. ·The Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) FRMP informs that website was used, and two workshops being held during the consultation, and includes a list of the stakeholders that were invited to attend the meetings. ·The Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060) FRMP reports that there was a written consultation and submission of comments by email. ·The Júcar (ES080) FRMP reports that consultation was made in written form. ·The Balearic Islands (ES110) FRMP does not provide details on the consultation process. The table below shows how the documents for the consultation were provided:

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.) Paper copies at the main office of the competent authority ✔ Source: FRMP For all five FRMPs assessed, the documents were provided at the main office of the competent authority, in physical form (printed), and via internet (website of the competent authority), according to the FRMPs. 7.3Active involvement of Stakeholders The table below shows the groups of stakeholders that have been actively involved in the development of the five FRMPs assessed: 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 Energy / hydropower Navigation / ports Fisheries / aquaculture Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) NGO's including nature protection, social issues (e.g. children, housing) Consumer Groups Local / Regional authorities ✔ Academia / Research Institutions ✔ Meteorological Institute ✔ Climate Change Office ✔ Geological Institute ✔ Agrarian Insurance Body ✔ Source: FRMP In general, during the drafting process of FRMPs, technical working groups were established for coordination with the institutions listed in the table above. It should be noted that this description is a standard text, which, for example, was also adopted by Balearic Islands, ES110, led by a regional UoM authority. The table below shows the mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders: ES014 ES017 ES060 ES080 ES110 Regular exhibitions Establishment of advisory groups Involvement in drafting Workshops and technical meetings ✔ ✔ Formation of alliances Information days ✔ Source: FRMP Specific mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders have been reported for the Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) and Júcar (ES080) FRMPs, namely workshops, technical meetings, and information days. 7.4Effects of consultation The FRMPs assessed include extensive information in the Annexes describing in detail the text of comments received and the response texts of the administrations. However, the information is very detailed, and aggregation is not practical. 7.5Strategic Environmental Assessment All five FRMPs assessed have undergone an SEA procedure. In some cases, a joint Strategic Environmental Assessment was undertaken for the RBMPs and FRMPs (Eastern Cantabrian, ES017; Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060; and Júcar, ES080). 7.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance

The following good practice was identified: ·SEAs have been carried out for all the FRMPs. In some cases, a joint Strategic Environmental Assessment has been undertaken for the RBMPs and FRMPs (Eastern Cantabrian, ES017; Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060; Júcar, ES080). ·The FRMPs include extensive information in the Annexes describing in detail the texts of comments received during consultation and the responses of the administrations. The following area for further development was identified: ·The number of comments received during the consultation has been low in general. The reasons should be investigated to potentially adjust the approach for the second cycle.



Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures provided by Spain 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 assessor to complete the questions on the Flood measures. The data are extracted from the XMLs (reporting sheets) reported by Member States for each FRMP, and are split into the following sections: ·Measures overview – Tabulates the number of measures for each UoM; ·Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; ·Measures details: name & location – Location & geographic coverage; ·Measure details: authorities – Name of responsible authority & level of responsibility; ·Measure details: objectives – Objectives, Category of priority & Timetable; ·Measure details: progress – Progress of implementation & Progress description; ·Measure details: other – Other Community Acts. On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the 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 could be filled in using standardised answers – for example, progress is measured via the categories set out in the Reporting Guidance. This means that producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort. For many fields, however, a free data format was used. For some Member States, this resulted in thousands of different answers, or answers given in the national language. In such situations, tables and charts were developed using the following steps:

·A first filter is applied to identify how many different answers were given. If a high number of different answers are given, Member States assessors were asked to refer to the raw data when conducting the assessment, and this Annex does not reflect these observations. ·If a manageable number of answers are given, obvious categories are identified, and raw data sorted. ·Measures missing information may be assigned categories based on other fields (for example, if the level of Responsibility Authority is missing, the information may be obvious from the field “name of Responsible Authority”). ·Measures where obvious categories cannot be defined based on other available information (as in the example on the name of the Responsible Authority, 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 Annex A tables and figures _Toc521939338 Table A1 Number of measures reported in the reporting sheets Table A2 Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM, including duplicates Table A3 Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM Table A4 Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, including duplicates Table A5 Location of implementation by measure aspect Table A6 Location of implementation by UoM Table A7 Category of priority by measure aspect Table A8 Category of priority by UoM

Table A9 Level of responsibility by measure aspect Table A10 Level of responsibility by UoM Table A11 Progress of implementation by measure aspect Table A12 Progress of implementation by UoM Figure A1 Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect Figure A2 Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect Figure A3 Visualisation of Table A6: Location by measure aspect Figure A4 Visualisation of Table A7: Location by UoM Figure A5 Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by measure aspect Figure A6 Visualisation of Table A9: Category of priority by UoM Figure A7 Visualisation of Table A10: Level of responsibility by measure aspect Figure A8 Visualisation of Table A11: Level of responsibility by UoM Figure A9 Visualisation of Table A12: Progress of implementation by measure aspect Figure A10 Visualisation of Table A13: Progress of implementation by UoM Measures overview Number of individual measures 192 Number of individual measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 192 Number of aggregated measures 1 171 Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 1 171 Total number of measures 1 363 Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 1 363 Range of number of measures between UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type (Min-Max) 49 - 156 Average number of measures across UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 80

Prevention Protection Preparedness Recovery & review Other Grand Total M21 M24 M31 M32 M33 M34 M41 M42 M43 M51 M53 ES010 6 6 ES014 4 4 ES017 2 22 1 25 ES018 1 19 2 22 ES020 4 1 5 ES030 5 5 ES040 27 1 28 ES050 8 8 ES060 12 12 ES063 2 2 ES064 2 1 3 ES070 20 1 7 4 32 ES080 1 6 4 1 12 ES091 1 8 1 3 1 5 2 1 1 23 ES110 5 5 Grand Total 1 1 98 6 67 5 1 8 2 2 1 0 192 Average per UoM <1 <1 7 <1 4 <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 0 13 Prevention Protection Preparedness Recovery & review Other Grand Total M21 M22 M23 M24 M31 M32 M33 M34 M41 M42 M43 M51 M53 ES010 4 1 7 3 4 2 1 9 6 3 2 11 53 ES014 5 1 12 6 3 3 2 7 5 3 4 11 62 ES017 9 1 1 14 7 3 6 2 18 6 3 9 11 90 ES018 9 1 1 14 8 3 6 2 14 14 10 9 11 102 ES020 5 1 1 9 3 5 2 1 8 6 3 2 11 57 ES030 4 1 8 7 5 2 1 12 6 3 2 11 62 ES040 5 1 1 12 11 4 2 2 9 6 3 3 11 70 ES050 5 1 1 11 4 7 2 1 8 6 3 3 11 63 ES060 7 10 3 6 3 1 6 6 3 7 13 65 ES063 7 10 3 6 7 1 6 6 3 7 13 69 ES064 6 9 2 6 2 1 6 6 1 4 13 56 ES070 7 2 10 2 9 1 1 8 9 3 3 11 66 ES080 6 1 1 12 6 3 3 1 9 8 5 3 11 69 ES091 23 1 17 8 7 2 1 24 24 4 7 15 133 ES110 4 1 9 4 1 2 1 7 7 3 3 11 53 ES150 5 1 1 11 2 4 2 1 3 5 3 3 11 52 ES160 5 1 1 11 2 1 2 1 3 5 3 3 11 49 Grand Total 116 8 15 186 81 77 49 21 157 131 59 74 197 0 1 171 Average per UoM 7 <1 1 11 5 5 3 1 9 8 3 4 12 0 69 Prevention Total Protection Total Preparedness Total Recovery & review Total Other Grand Total Aggregate Individual Aggregate Individual Aggregate Individual Aggregate Individual ES010 12 12 10 6 16 18 18 13 13 59 ES014 18 18 14 4 18 15 15 15 15 66 ES017 25 25 18 24 42 27 1 28 20 20 115 ES018 25 25 19 20 39 38 2 40 20 20 124 ES020 16 16 11 4 15 17 1 18 13 13 62 ES030 13 13 15 5 20 21 21 13 13 67 ES040 19 19 19 28 47 18 18 14 14 98 ES050 18 18 14 8 22 17 17 14 14 71 ES060 17 17 13 12 25 15 15 20 20 77 ES063 17 17 17 2 19 15 15 20 20 71 ES064 15 15 11 3 14 13 13 17 17 59 ES070 19 19 13 32 45 20 20 14 14 98 ES080 20 1 21 13 10 23 22 22 14 1 15 81 ES091 41 1 42 18 13 31 52 7 59 22 2 24 156 ES110 14 14 8 5 13 17 17 14 14 58 ES150 18 18 9 9 11 11 14 14 52 ES160 18 18 6 6 11 11 14 14 49 Grand Total 325 2 327 228 176 404 347 11 358 271 3 274 0 1 363 Average per UoM 19 <1 19 13 10 24 20 1 21 16 <1 16 0 80 The information in Tables A3, A4 and A5 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: Measure details: cost Member States were requested to report information on: ·Cost (optional field); ·Cost explanation (optional field). The reported information on costs in the reporting sheets is descriptive. For Spain, it was not possible to aggregate the information provided in tabular form.

Measure details: name & location Member States were requested to report information on the following: ·Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); ·Geographic coverage of the impact of measures (optional field). Location of measures For Spain, it has been possible to identify the location of all measures, as the free format answers are fairly uniform. Specific Location APSFR UoM Grand Total Preparedness 1 48 309 358 Prevention 1 39 287 327 Protection 1 317 86 404 Recovery & review 99 175 274 Grand Total 3 503 857 1 363 Specific Location APSFR UoM Grand Total ES010 11 48 59 ES014 20 46 66 ES017 55 60 115 ES018 3 41 80 124 ES020 14 48 62 ES030 15 52 67 ES040 48 50 98 ES050 20 51 71 ES060 26 51 77 ES063 20 51 71 ES064 15 44 59 ES070 52 46 98 ES080 37 44 81 ES091 101 55 156 ES110 10 48 58 ES150 9 43 52 ES160 9 40 49 Grand Total 3 503 857 1 363 Average per UoM <1 30 50 80 Geographic coverage No information reported in the reporting sheets. Measure details: objectives Member States were requested to report information on:

·Objectives linked to measures (optional field, complementary to the summary provided in the textual part of the 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 The Guidance Document indicates that for each measure, an “Explanation of how the measure contributes to the objectives” can be provided (this is an optional field). In the reporting for Spain, covering all reported UoMs, 218 different answers are given across the measures, which makes the aggregation of the information in tables and charts impractical. Category of priority Spain provided information for the priority of all measures. The following categories are used in reporting: ·Critical; ·Very high; ·High; ·Moderate; ·Low. Critical Very high High Moderate Low Grand Total Prevention 176 121 30 327 Protection 36 216 146 5 1 404 Preparedness 158 164 36 358 Recovery & Review 96 123 55 274 Grand Total 466 624 267 5 1 1 363 Critical Very high High Moderate Low Grand Total ES010 20 28 11 59 ES014 18 34 14 66 ES017 37 38 40 115 ES018 39 43 42 124 ES020 17 30 15 62 ES030 23 33 11 67 ES040 25 63 10 98 ES050 18 39 11 2 1 71 ES060 44 24 9 77 ES063 31 32 7 1 71 ES064 29 21 9 59 ES070 24 31 42 1 98 ES080 30 39 11 1 81 ES091 68 71 17 156 ES110 19 29 10 58 ES150 12 36 4 52 ES160 12 33 4 49 Grand Total 466 624 267 5 1 1 363 Average per UoM 27 37 16 <1 <1 80

Timetable For Spain, there does not seem to be a clear relationship between the timetable and the priorities. 653 different answers are provided on the timetable and the aggregation of the data was thus not possible. Measure details: authorities Member States were requested to report information on: ·Name of the responsible authority (optional if ‘level of responsibility’ is reported); ·Level of responsibility (optional if ‘name of the responsible authority’ is reported). Spain reported on both fields. The tables and charts below are developed based on the level of responsibility. Municipal Regional National Other Grand Total Prevention 18 105 182 22 327 Protection 19 87 259 39 404 Preparedness 5 104 146 103 358 Recovery & Review 36 173 65 274 Grand Total 42 332 760 229 1 363 Municipal Regional National Other Grand Total ES010 1 43 15 59 ES014 3 24 31 8 66 ES017 26 31 58 115 ES018 7 24 72 21 124 ES020 2 2 44 14 62 ES030 2 1 51 13 67 ES040 3 2 79 14 98 ES050 1 2 54 14 71 ES060 1 47 28 1 77 ES063 5 43 22 1 71 ES064 1 36 21 1 59 ES070 4 19 65 10 98 ES080 5 8 54 14 81 ES091 4 78 66 8 156 ES110 2 15 28 13 58 ES150 1 2 37 12 52 ES160 1 2 34 12 49 Grand Total 42 332 760 229 1 363 Average per UoM 2 20 45 13 80

Measure details: progress Member States were requested to report information on: ·Progress of implementation of measures (mandatory field) – this is a closed question whose responses are analysed below; ·Progress description of the implementation of measures (optional field) – this is an open text question for which not all Member States reported and whose answers are not analysed here. Spain reported information about the progress of implementation of the measures. The progress of implementation was reported as: ·COM (completed); ·OGC (ongoing construction); ·POG (progress ongoing); ·NS (not started). A full definition of these terms can be found at the end of this section. Not started Ongoing construction Progress ongoing Completed Grand Total Prevention 10 6 311 327 Protection 109 13 281 1 404 Preparedness 6 20 332 358 Recovery & Review 29 17 228 274 Grand Total 154 56 1 152 1 1 363 Not started Ongoing construction Progress ongoing Completed Grand Total ES010 13 46 59 ES014 5 3 57 1 66 ES017 28 87 115 ES018 25 99 124 ES020 5 3 54 62 ES030 4 12 51 67 ES040 3 95 98 ES050 5 1 65 71 ES060 3 74 77 ES063 3 68 71 ES064 3 56 59 ES070 46 52 98 ES080 6 75 81 ES091 10 10 136 156 ES110 4 12 42 58 ES150 2 1 49 52 ES160 2 1 46 49 Grand Total 154 56 1 152 1 1 363 Average per UoM 9 3 68 <1 80