COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT International Cooperation under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) - Factsheets for International River Basins 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
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, cross-border cooperation, disaster area, environmental risk prevention, flood, international cooperation, risk management, water management, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2019  SWD(2019) 33 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT International Cooperation under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) - Factsheets for International River Basins 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) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - 
 
 
Table of Contents 

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. 5 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6 

Types of international coordination ........................................................................................... 7 

1 

International units of management – Category 1 Basins .................................................. 11 

1.1  Danube River Basin ................................................................................................... 11 

1.1.1 

Contextual information ...................................................................................... 11 

1.1.2 

Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB ............................ 11 

1.1.3 

Consultation and publication of the iFRMP ....................................................... 12 

1.1.4 

Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP ............................................ 13 

1.1.5 

Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP ............................................ 14 

1.1.6 

Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk ............. 16 

1.1.7 

Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect............... 16 

1.1.8 

Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Danube ........................ 19 

1.1.9 

Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Danube RB ................................ 19 

1.1.10  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles ................. 20 

1.2  Rhine River Basin ...................................................................................................... 21 

1.2.1 

Contextual information ...................................................................................... 21 

1.2.2 

Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB ............................ 21 

1.2.3 

Consultation and publication of the iFRMP ....................................................... 22 

1.2.4 

Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP ............................................ 22 

1.2.5 

Flood Hazard and Flood Risk maps in the iFRMP ............................................ 23 

1.2.6 

Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk ............. 23 

1.2.7 

Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect............... 24 

1.2.8 

Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Rhine ........................... 26 

1.2.9 

Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Rhine RB ................................... 27 

1.2.10  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles ................. 27 

1.3  Meuse River Basin ..................................................................................................... 28 

1.3.1 

Contextual information ...................................................................................... 28 

1.3.2 

Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB ............................ 29 

1 

 
 
1.3.3 

Consultation and publication of the Meuse iFRMP ........................................... 29 

1.3.4 

Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Meuse ...................... 29 

1.3.5 

Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Meuse ...................... 30 

1.3.6 

Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk ............. 30 

1.3.7 

Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect............... 31 

1.3.8 

Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Meuse .......................... 32 

1.3.9 

Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Meuse RB .................................. 33 

1.3.10  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles ................. 33 

1.4 

Elbe River Basin ........................................................................................................ 34 

1.4.1 

Contextual information ...................................................................................... 34 

1.4.2 

Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB ............................ 34 

1.4.3 

Consultation and publication of the Elbe iFRMP .............................................. 34 

1.4.4 

Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Elbe ......................... 35 

1.4.5 

Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Elbe ......................... 36 

1.4.6 

Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk ............. 37 

1.4.7 

Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect............... 38 

1.4.8 

Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Elbe ............................. 39 

1.4.9 

Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Elbe RB ...................................... 40 

1.4.10  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles ................. 40 

1.5  Odra River Basin ....................................................................................................... 41 

1.5.1 

Contextual information ...................................................................................... 41 

1.5.2 

Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB ............................ 41 

1.5.3 

Consultation and publication of the Odra iFRMP .............................................. 42 

1.5.4 

Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Odra ........................ 42 

1.5.5 

Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Odra ......................... 43 

1.5.6 

Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk ............. 43 

1.5.7 

Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect............... 44 

1.5.8 

Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Odra ............................. 44 

1.5.9 

Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Odra RB ..................................... 45 

1.5.10  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles ................. 45 

1.6 

Scheldt (Escaut) River Basin ..................................................................................... 46 

2 

 
 
1.6.1 

Contextual information ...................................................................................... 46 

1.6.2 

Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB ............................ 46 

1.6.3 

Consultation and publication of the Scheldt iFRMP .......................................... 47 

1.6.4 

Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Scheldt .................... 47 

1.6.5 

Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Scheldt ..................... 47 

1.6.6 

Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk ............. 48 

1.6.7 

Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect............... 48 

1.6.8 

Consideration of climate change in the Scheldt iFRMP .................................... 49 

1.6.9 

Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Scheld RB .................................. 50 

1.6.10  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles ................. 50 

2 

International units of management – Category 2 Basins .................................................. 52 

2.1 

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 52 

2.1.1 

Contextual information ...................................................................................... 52 

2.1.2 

Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RBs ........................... 53 

2.1.3 

Coordinated consultation of FRMPs in transboundary RBs .............................. 55 

2.1.4 

Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in transboundary RBs ............................... 56 

2.1.5 

Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in transboundary RBs ............................... 57 

2.1.6 

Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk in transboundary RBs . 58 

2.1.7 

Planning and implementation of measures in transboundary RBs ..................... 58 

2.1.8 

Consideration of climate change in transboundary RBs .................................... 60 

2.1.9 

Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles ................. 61 

3 

International units of management – Category 3 Basins .................................................. 63 

3.1.1 

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 63 

3.1.2 

Contextual information ...................................................................................... 63 

3.1.3 

Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RBs ........................... 64 

3.1.4 

Coordinated consultation of FRMPs in transboundary RBs .............................. 65 

3.1.5 

Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in transboundary RBs ............................... 65 

3.1.6 

Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in transboundary RBs ............................... 66 

3.1.7 

Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk in transboundary RBs . 66 

3.1.8 

Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect............... 66 

3.1.9 

Consideration of climate change in transboundary RBs .................................... 67 

3 

 
 
3.1.10  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles ................. 67 

4 

International units of management – Category 4 Basins .................................................. 68 

4.1.1 

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 68 

4.1.2 

Contextual information ...................................................................................... 68 

4.1.3 

Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB ............................ 69 

4.1.4 

Coordinated consultation of FRMPs in transboundary RBs .............................. 69 

4.1.5 

Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in transboundary RBs ............................... 69 

4.1.6 

Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in transboundary RBs ............................... 69 

4.1.7 

Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk ............. 69 

4.1.8 

Planning and implementation measures with transboundary effect ................... 69 

4.1.9 

Consideration of climate change in transboundary RBs .................................... 69 

4.2  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles ........................ 69 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

APSFR 
CBA 
EU 
FD 
FHRM 
FRMP 
iFRMP 
iRBD 
iRBMP 
iUoM 
PFRA 
RB 
RBD 
RBMP 
WFD 
WISE 

Area of Potential Significant Flood Risk 
Cost-benefit analysis 
European Union 
Floods Directive (Directive 2007/60/EC) 
Flood Hazard and Risk Map 
Flood Risk Management Plan 
international Flood Risk Management Plan 
international River Basin District 
international River Basin Management Plan 
international Unit of Management 
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment 
River Basin 
River Basin District 
River Basin Management Plan 
Water Framework Directive 
Water Information System for Europe 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
Introduction 

There is  long standing bilateral  or multilateral  cooperation established  between the Member 
States in the area of water management that predates the introduction of the Water Framework 

Directive  (WFD)  and  the  Floods  Directive  (FD).  Next  to  the  assessment  of  the  first  Flood 
Risk  Management  Plans  (FRMPs)  under  the  FD,  a  desk-based  review  of  this  cross-border 

cooperation  was  carried  out  on  the  basis  of  (1)  the  transboundary  river  basins  (RBs)  level 
international  FRMPs  (iFRMP)  and  (2)  the  national  FRMPs,  to  ascertain  how  the  FD  has 

influenced  this  cooperation,  and  with  a  view  to  making  recommendations  towards  further 
reinforcing  it.  The  findings  of  this  review  are  therefore  constrained  by  the  choice  of  the 

aspects reviewed and by the amount of information contained in the reviewed documents. 

The aim of the European Union (EU) Directive on the assessment and management of flood 
risks (Directive 2007/60/EC; the FD1), which entered into force on 26 November 2007 is, to 
reduce  the  adverse  consequences  of  floods  on  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural 

heritage  and  economic  activities  (Art.  1).  In  terms  of  cross-border  co-operation,  Member 
States shall coordinate their flood risk management practices2 in shared RBs, including with 
third  counties,  and  shall  in  solidarity  not  undertake  measures  that  would  increase  the  flood 
risk  in  neighbouring  countries.  Member  States  should  take  into  consideration  long  term 

developments, including climate change, as well as sustainable land use practices in the flood 
risk  management  cycle.  Article  8  of  the  FD  requires  that  Member  States  shall  ensure 

coordination with the aim of producing one single iFRMP, or a set of FRMPs coordinated at 
the level  of the international  River Basin  District  (iRBD)/international  Unit of Management 
(iUoM) level. 

The  European  Commission  is  required  to  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  in 
2018  on  progress  made  by  Member  States  with  implementing  the  Directive.  The  present 

document is  part of this  reporting and comprises  a series of fact  sheets  for the international 
RB which are describing the application of the Directive at iRBD or iUoM level.  

It is based on the information reported by Member States to the Water Information System for 
Europe  (WISE),  previous  national  and  EU  overview  reports  on  Preliminary  Flood  Risk 

Assessments  (PFRA)  and  Flood  Hazard  &  Risk  Maps  (FHRM)  published  by  the  European 
Commission3  and  the  national  and  international  Flood  Risk  management  Plans  (FRMP  and 
iFRMPs). 

27  RBs  were  chosen  for  the  assessment  (see  Table  2  for  an  overview).  RBs  shared  with 
Greece  (five  iRBDs)  and  Ireland  (three  iRBDs)  could  not  be  assessed  due  to  the  delayed 

1 See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060  
2 See Article 5(2), Article 7(1), Article 7(4), Article 8 and Annex A.II(3) of the Directive. 
3 Available under http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm) 

6 

 
 
                                                 
reporting.  In  addition,  RBs  shared  between  Lithuania-Latvia-(Russia)-(Belarus)  (three 
iRBDs), one basin shared between Italy and France4 and four iRBDs shared between Sweden-
Norway were not reviewed. 

Types of international coordination  

According  to  the  type  of  coordination  mechanism  that  has  been  established  by  the  Member 

States in the different iRBDS/iUOM, four main categories have been identified in the context 
of this assessment5: 

a) Category 1 RBs which are iRBDS/iUOMs with (a) formal international agreement(s), 
an international coordinating body and an iFRMP produced by this international body; 

b) Category 2 RBs which are iRBDS/iUOMs with (a) formal international agreement(s), 

an international coordinating body, but no iFRMP; 

(c) Category 3 RBs which are iRBDS/iUOMs with (a) formal international agreement(s), 

but no international coordinating body and no iFRMP; 

d) Category 4 RBs which are iRBDS/iUOMs with no formal international agreement, no 

international coordinating body and no iFRMP. 

An overview of the identified categories is given in Table 1. 

Table 1: 

Different types of international co-ordination in relation to the FD 

Category  

1 
2 
3 
4 

Formal international 
agreement 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 

International coordinating 
body 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
No 

IFRMP produced 

Yes 
No 
No 
No 

The assessment suggests that despite the absence of river basin commissions, there is notable 
cooperation  between  Germany  and  Denmark,  Sweden  and  Finland,  Latvia  and  Estonia  and 

Spain and Portugal. In the map below the basins assessed are shown. 

4 Italy has applied Art 13(1)(b) for all UOMs and no PFRA reporting was carried out. Italy subsequently clarified 
that a Memorandum of Understanding was signed in 2013 (“Protocollo d’intesa transfrontaliera per il bacino 
idrografico  del  fiume  Roja  e  dei  suoi  affluenti”)  with  the  aim  of  carrying  out  international  coordination 
activities  under  Directives  2000/60/EC  (the  WFD)  and  2007/60/EC  (the  FD).  In  addition,  several  Interreg 
projects were launched in the last years one of which “Concert-Eaux” is still ongoing. In addition, the FRMP 
LIGURIA UOM, which is included in the Northern Apennines RBMP approved by Decree of the President 
of the Council of Ministers on 27th of October 2016, contains information on the above described activities. 

5 Other categories might exist, but have not been identified in the context of this review. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 1: 

Map of iRBD for which a review was done 

Table 2: 

List of selected iRBDs/iUoM for which an assessment was done 

Category 

International RBs 

Danube6 

1
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

Elbe 
Rhine 

Meuse 

Odra 
Scheldt 
Duero/Douro 
Guadiana 

Riparian EU Member States/Non-EU countries 

Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Croatia, 
Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia 
Non-EU countries: Switzerland, Albania, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova, Montenegro, 
FYROM7 
Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland 
Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, The 
Netherlands 
Non-EU countries: Switzerland, Liechtenstein 
Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands 

the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland 
Belgium, France, The Netherlands 
Spain, Portugal 
Spain, Portugal 

6 Please note that within the Danube an additional sub-catchment FRMP for the Sava is under development. 
7 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 

8 

t

C a

g
e

r y
o

2

WeserRUUAFRFIESTRSEITDEPLNOROUKBYISBGIEATPTHURSLTCZGRLVBASKHREECHNLALBEMDSIDKMKMECYLUIMADSJFOLIMTJESMGGGIVAMCDanubeElbeRhinePoOdraVistulaRhoneEbroSeineDouroTagusBothnian SeaBothnian BayVuoksiAdour-GaronneGuadianaKemijokiGlommaTenoNemunasMeuseFinnmarkScheldtVentaEast AegeanEmsNordlandDaugavaEastern AlpsMinhoTromsSkagerrak and KattegatTroendelagGaujaTorne RiverShannonEast EstoniaWest AegeanEpirusTornionjokiLielupeEiderNorth WesternPregolyaWestern MacedoniaNeagh BannCentral MacedoniaSchlei/TraveEastern CantabrianSambreVidaa-KrusaaAdigeUckerFRGSE2RO1000SE1FRFFRDPL2000FRHITBITFSE5PL6000DE2000ES091DE5000SE4ES020ITAHU1000AT1000ITEUK01ITCES050SE3FIVHA3ES030ES040FIVHA4FIVHA1ITHDE1000FIVHA5LT1100FIVHA2ITGES080DE4000BG1000NO1105NO5101CZ_5000FRCSK40000CH10EE2EE1UK04UK05NO5102BG3000NLRNUK09PTRH5FIVHA7UK08ES070UK06UK02ES060ES018PTRH3IESEES100CZ_1000GR08UK10BG2000IESWFREES014PTRH4GR04UK03GR13GR11IEEACH5006701,340335kmNational and International River Basin DistrictsEU iRBDsCategory 1Category 2Category 3Category 4Not reviewedNon EU iRBDsNot ReviewedCategory 1Category 2Category 3Category 4National RBD 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                     
                                                 
Category 

International RBs 

Riparian EU Member States/Non-EU countries 

Miño/Minho 
Tagus (Tajo/Tejo) 
Isonzo/Soca 
Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru 

Ems 
Tornio/Torne 
Teno/Tana 

Garonne/ (Cantabrico 
Oriental) 
Garonne/ (Ebro) 
Vistula 

Pregolya 

Torne Bothanian Bay 

Vidaa/Wiedau9 
Krusaa/Krusau10 
Po 

Gauja/Koiva 
East Estonia 

Kemijoki\11 

Teno/Tana 

Nemunas/Nieman/Nema
n/Nyoman 
Schlei Trave 
Eider 
Eastern Alps (Adige) 

Spain, Portugal 
Spain, Portugal 
Italy, Slovenia 
Poland 
Non-EU countries: Moldova, Ukraine 
Germany, The Netherlands  
Finland, Sweden 
Finland 
Non-EU countries: Norway8, Russia 
France, Spain 

France, Spain 
Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania 
Non-EU countries: Ukraine, Belarus 
Poland, Lithuania 
Non-EU countries: Russia 
Finland, Sweden 
Non-EU countries: Norway 
Denmark, Germany 
Denmark, Germany 
Italy, France 
Non-EU countries: Switzerland 
Estonia, Latvia 
Estonia 
Non-EU countries: Russia 
Finland 
Non-EU countries: Norway, Russia 

Finland 
Non-EU countries: Norway, Russia 
Lithuania, Poland 
Non-EU countries: Russia, Belarus 
Germany, Denmark 
Germany, Denmark 
Italy 
Non-EU countries: Switzerland 

3
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

4

y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

The  categories  might  differ  from  the  categories  applied  under  the  WFD’s  equivalent 

assessment because of different agreements made for the management of flood risk. 

The  table  below  lists  those  RBs  where  no  assessment  was  carried  out  due  to  absence  of 

information through FD implementation channels for the national parts of the RBs. 

8 Norway is not implementing the FD. 
9  The  transboundary  rivers  shared  by  Denmark  and  Germany  are  the  Vidaa/Wiedau  and  the  Krusaa/Krusau 
rivers. Vidaa-Krusaa is part of the Eider and Schlei/Trave RBD in Germany, and make up the whole of the 
iRBD in Denmark (Internationalt Vanddistrikt DK4). 

10 See footnote above. 
11 Finland subsequently clarified that only a very small part of the RB is in Russia (2,9  %) and an even smaller 
part in Norway. These parts  are very sparsely populated  small upstream catchments  with only a  very little 
human or hydrological impact on the Kemijoki RB. In addition, no flood risk issues have been identified in 
these parts from the work of the Finnish-Russian transboundary commission. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 3: 

List of iRBDs/iUoM for which an assessment was not carried out 

International RB 

Riparian EU Member States/Non-EU countries 

Shannon/North Eastern 

Neagh Bann 

North Western 

Drin  

Aoos/Vjosa 

Nordland 

Troendelag 

Bothanin Bay 

Skagerrak and Kattegat 

Lielupe 

Venta 

Daugava 

Mesta-Nestos 

Struma-Strymonas 

Central Macedonia 

The United Kingdom, Ireland 

The United Kingdom, Ireland 

The United Kingdom, Ireland 

Greece 
Non-EU countries: Albania, FYROM 
Greece 
Non-EU countries: Albania 
Sweden 
Non-EU countries: Norway 
Sweden 
Non-EU countries: Norway 
Sweden 
Non-EU countries: Norway 
Sweden 
Non-EU countries: Norway 
Lithuania, Latvia 

Lithuania, Latvia 

Lithuania, Latvia 
Non-EU countries: Russia, Belarus 
Bulgaria, Greece 

Bulgaria, Greece 

Greece 
Non-EU countries: FYROM, Serbia 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
1 

International units of management – Category 1 Basins 

1.1  Danube River Basin 

1.1.1  Contextual information  

The Danube RB is shared by the riparian countries of Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, 
Slovakia,  Hungary,  Slovenia,  Croatia,  Bulgaria  and  Romania,  with  shares  in  non-EU 

countries  principally  in  Serbia,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Montenegro,  Moldova  and  the 
Ukraine. The Danube is considered a Category 1 RB, as an international commission has been 
set up – The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)12 – to 
enable cooperation between the riparian countries – and an iFRMP exists.  

Within the Danube catchment an international commission at the sub- catchment level exists: 
The International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC) has been established for purpose of 

the implementation of the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin. One of the goals 
of  the  Framework  Agreement  is  to  undertake  measures  to  prevent  or  limit  hazards,  such  as 

floods. The Sava Commission is currently in the process of drafting an iFRMP.  

1.1.2  Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB 

The ICPDR has produced an iFRMP13 together with Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, 
Slovakia,  Hungary,  Slovenia,  Croatia,  Serbia,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Montenegro, 

Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova and Ukraine. Within the Commission, the Expert Group ‘Flood 
Protection’ (FP EG) is tasked with supporting the implementation of the FD. 

Although there is  no requirement in  the FD for riparian Member States to co-fund projects, 
considering  the  transboundary  context,  it  is  not  clear  if  financial  resources  for  joint 

cooperation  (other  than  the  functioning  of  the  ICPDR)  have  been  made  available  by  the 
participating states. However, the iFRMP indicates which financial instruments are planned to 
be used (or already being used) for joint cooperation. For example, the EUSDR14 supports the 
measures foreseen in the iFRMP and provides a platform for developing projects on flood risk 

management,  especially  flood  mitigation.  The  iFRMP  states  that  Article  7(4),  the  solidarity 
principle, has been  applied in  the basin: The  ICPDR agreed that the measures with  positive 

downstream  effects  shall  have  the  key  priority  at  the  basin-wide  level  (i.e.,  measures  like 
natural  water  retention,  warning  systems,  reduction  of  risk  from  contaminated  sites  in 

floodplain  areas,  exchange  of  information).  The  plan  states  that  to  avoid  the  negative 
downstream  effects,  the  national  legislation  shall  contain  provisions  stipulating  that  FRMPs 

12 https://www.icpdr.org/  
13  More  information  regarding  the  iFRMP  and  the  maps  produced  under  the  FD  can  be  found  here: 

https://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/flood-risk-management  

14 http://www.danube-region.eu/  

11 

 
 
                                                 
shall not include measures which, by their extent and impact, significantly increase flood risks 

in other countries.  

The iFRMP was developed in consultation with the WFD and since the ICPDR is responsible 

for  both,  the  overall  coordination  of  the  implementation  of  the  FD  and  the  WFD  in  the 
Danube RB a good prerequisite for synergies exists. Some examples of win-win measures are 

stated in the iFRMP. 

1.1.3  Consultation and publication of the iFRMP 

Under public participation, the ICPDR pursues a range of activities. These include 1) public 
information such as the development of technical public documents and general publications 

(e.g. the quarterly magazine ‘Danube Watch’); 2) environmental education, awareness raising 
and outreach (e.g. the annual river festival ‘Danube Day’ or the teacher’s kit ‘Danube Box’) 

and  3)  public  consultation  activities  directly  linked  to  the  development  of  the  River  Basin 
Management Plan (RBMP) and FRMP. 

To  accompany  the  development  of  the  iFRMP,  public  consultation  was  done  in  two  main 
stages,  in  which  comments  from  the  public  were  collected:  1)  on  a  timetable  and  work 

programme including public consultation measures and 2) on the draft FRMP.  

Public consultation for both of these steps spun a period of at least six months, in which the 

opportunity to provide comments was actively promoted. The timetable and work programme 
were  published  for  comments  from  22  December  2012  to  22  June  2013;  the  draft  iFRMP 

entered the public consultation phase on 22 December 2014 and concluded 22 July 2015.  

The  opportunity  to  participate  in  each  of  these  steps  was  promoted  through  the  ICPDR 

network  of  contracting  parties  and  observers,  through  news  items  on  the  ICPDR  website 
icpdr.org,  the  magazine  Danube  Watch,  targeted  advertisements  in  specialist  media  such  as 

Aquapress and through a video clip that called stakeholders to get active in the consultation 
process. The video was used in national channels via the ICPDR network and can be found at 

icpdr.org/main/get-active. 

For the consultation on the draft iFRMP, a comprehensive approach was chosen that aimed at 

stakeholder groups with differing degrees of involvement in water management issues. These 
can  be  divided  into  four  groups  and  corresponding  activities,  which  are  described  in  more 

detail  below.  Raw  data  and  reports  on  each  of  these  activities  was  published  online  at 
http://icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/consultation-2015. 

The opportunity to comment on the draft plan in writing was primarily advertised to organised 
stakeholders  with  the  technical  capacity  and  expertise,  such  as  ICPDR  observers.  Until  22 
July 2015, fourteen written comments by a range of organisations or individuals representing 

12 

 
 
an organisation were provided jointly for the iFRMP and the international RBMP’s (iRBMP) 

update for 2015. Each of these comments, some of which are extensive documents relating to 
several different elements in the draft Plans, were published online and processed for the final 

report. 

In addition, a stakeholder consultation workshop ‘Voice of the Danube’ was held in  Zagreb 

on 2 and 3 July 2015. 

In  order  to  expand  the  target  groups  of  public  consultation  beyond  expert  stakeholders,  a 

simple  and  easily  accessible  online  questionnaire  was  developed  and  published  via 
ICPDR.org to target the interested, but not informed public. In parallel, a questionnaire related 

to  the  iRBMP’s  update  for  2015  was  also  published.  In  total,  95  people  filled  in  the 
questionnaire for the iFRMP, and a further 90 people filled in the one for the iRBMP. 

To include the general public that would not be targeted by the other consultation measures, a 
social  media  campaign  was  implemented  in  parallel  to  the  preparation  for  the  stakeholder 

consultation workshop. 

To ensure the highest possible transparency, all comments requesting changes or additions in 

the draft iFRMP were collected and processed by the relevant ICPDR expert or task group. A 
final  report  was  published  alongside  with  the  final  iFRMP  in  December  2015.  This  final 

public consultation report gives an overview on the measures pursued and the original sources 
for  the  comments  received.  Furthermore,  a  table  breaks  down  the  individual  requests  for 

changes to the draft management plan together with information on the chapter it relates to, 
which organisation or individual raised it and how it was dealt with – if it resulted in changes, 

information is given on which; if it was rejected, a reason is given why. The report was sent to 
all organisations and individuals that participated in the public consultation activities and can 

be found on icpdr.org. 

1.1.4  Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP 

In  the  iFRMP  it  is  stated  that  the  risk  assessment  has  been  coordinated  at  the  international 
level.  An  updated  version  of  the  Area  of  Potential  Significant  Flood  Risk  (APSFR)  map 

published in the PFRA report in 2011 was developed. The design and background data of the 
map follows the approach of the ICPDR for WFD reporting on level “A”, which is the highest 

(least detailed) level, that of the overall international RB district. 

Transboundary APSFRs were defined by the FP EG as any area (in the transboundary reach 

of the Danube river or one of its tributaries) that has been assigned as a transboundary APSFR 
by at least one country. The assignment was discussed then further at the bilateral level. If the 
transboundary  character  of  an  APSFR  is  regarded  as  not  yet  agreed  by  one  country,  this  is 

shown on the map. For a river crossing a border, the area of common interest is assigned as 
13 

 
 
transboundary  APSFR.  The  extent  of  this  area  of  common  interest  has  to  be  agreed  by  the 

neighbouring countries. The ICPDR agreed that two scenarios (medium and low probability) 
are  relevant  for  the  level  of  the  international  RB  district.  In  the  iFRMP,  there  is  no 
information on which sources of flooding have been considered15. 

On  the  basis  of  the  APSFRs,  different  risk  maps  for  the  entire  Danube  RB  have  been 

developed by the ICPDR and are explained in detail in the following section. 

1.1.5  Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP 

The Danube riparian countries did not use the same probabilities of flooding for developing 
their  national  FHRMs.  For  low  probability  flooding,  return  periods  between  100  and  1  000 

years were used. For medium probability flooding all countries with the exception of Ukraine 
and  Moldova,  used  a  return  period  of  100  years.  For  high  probabilities,  no  scenario  was 

agreed at ICPDR level, but risk maps are given. The probabilities used for low and medium 
probability by each country are listed in the following table: 

Table 10: 

Return periods used for FHRMs in the Danube  

Country Code  Medium probability 

Germany 
Austria 
the Czech 
Republic 
Slovakia 
Hungary 
Croatia 

Slovenia 
Serbia 
Bosnia and 
Herzegovina 
Bulgaria 
Romania 
Ukraine 
Moldova 

HQ100 
HQ100 
HQ100 

HQ100 
HQ100 
HQ100 

HQ100 
HQ100 
HQ100 

HQ100 
HQ100 
HQ10-20 
HQ10-20 

Low probability 
HQ1 000/1,5xHQ100 
HQ300 
HQ500 

HQ1 000/extremely dangerous flood 
HQ1 000 
HQ1 000 with no flood protection 
facility, protected systems 
considering dike failure 
HQ500 
HQ1 000 
HQ500 

HQ1 000 
HQ1 000 
HQ100-200 
HQ100 

The following risk maps for the entire Danube RB are available: 

a)  The  map  on  “risk  and  population”  shows  the  population  potentially  affected  by 
floods  with  low,  medium  and  high  probability  in  the  parts  of  the  countries 

belonging  to  the  Danube  RB.  In  the  inundation  areas  addressed,  there  are  at  least 
936 000 people affected by floods with high probability, at least 3 721 000 people 

15  The  ICPDR  subsequently  clarified  that  all  sources  of  floods  have  been  considered  -  depending  on  national 

approaches - and are visualized in the same map. 

14 

 
 
 
                                                 
affected by floods with medium probability and at least 6 734 000 people affected 

by floods with low probability. 

b)  The  maps  on  “risk  and economic  activity”  display  the  share  of  inundated  area  by 

class of economic activity (according to Corine Land Cover) for low, medium and 
high  probability  floods.  The  agricultural  areas  have  the  major  share  among  the 

different  types  of  economic  activities  followed  by  the  category  ‘others’,  which 
combines a number of various activities. Approximately 29 000 km2 of agricultural 
areas  are  potentially  affected  by  low  probability  floods  in  the  Danube  RB.  A 
significant share of the urban areas is potentially affected by low probability floods 

in  Austria,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Slovakia  and  the  Czech  Republic,  while  the 
largest urban area potentially affected by low probability floods is in Hungary (783 
km2).  

c)  The map on “risk and installations with the potential to cause pollution” shows the 

number of IPPC and Seveso installations affected by floods with low, medium and 
high probability in the parts of the countries belonging to the Danube RB. Floods 

with high probability affect 146 installations, floods with medium probability affect 
337 installations and floods with low probability affect 617 installations. 

d)  There  are  two  maps  on  “risk  and  WFD  protected  areas”.  One  map  is  showing 
Natura  2000  protected  areas  superimposed  by  the  flood  hazard  areas  (for  the  low 

probability floods scenario). Only the overlapping flood hazard areas are displayed. 
The  second  map  displays  the  total  number  of  affected  areas  designated  for  the 

abstraction of water intended for human consumption under WFD’s Article 7, and 
of  the  affected  bodies  of  water  designated  as  recreational  waters,  including  areas 

designated  as  bathing  waters  under  Directive  2006/7/EC  by  floods  with  low, 
medium  and  high  probability.  Floods  with  high  probability  affect  241  drinking 

water  and  recreational  water  areas,  floods  with  medium  probability  affect  413 
drinking water and recreational water areas and floods with low probability affect 

796 drinking water and recreational water areas in the Danube RB. 

No map is provided for cultural heritage at risk of flooding.16 

No data were provided by Ukraine, Moldova and Montenegro on FHRMs.  

1.1.6  Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk 

The  ICPDR  agreed  upon  the  following  objectives  of  the  flood  risk  management  for  the 
Danube RB: 

16 Cultural heritage will be added in the second cycle. 

15 

 
 
                                                 
 

 

 

 

 

Avoidance of new risks 

Reduction of existing risks 

Strengthening resilience 

Raising awareness 

Solidarity principle 

These  objectives  focus  on  the  reduction  of  potential  adverse  consequences  of  flooding  for 
human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity and aim to address all 

aspects of flood risk management focusing on prevention, protection, preparedness, including 
flood forecasts and early warning systems. The objectives are not further quantified and they 

are in line with the ones established nationally by the Member States being members of the 
ICPDR.  However,  they  are  described  on  a  very  general  level  and  therefore  leave  room  for 
accommodating specificities on Member States level17. 

1.1.7  Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 

There  are  common  principles  for  defining  measures.  Annex  2  of  the  iFRMP  lists 

transboundary projects supporting the iFRMP. Joint measures/projects are: 

 

Danube Sediment Project: One of the main goals of the proposed project is to establish 
for the first time a Danube River Basin sediment budget, identify reaches  with surplus 

and deficit, river bed aggradation and degradation, sediment-related problems in flood 
risk management, drinking water production, hydropower generation, navigation, water 

quality  and  ecology,  as  well  as  gain  knowledge  and  better  understanding  of  sediment 
transport and morpho-dynamic processes in the Danube River (M61). 

 

Danube  Floodplain  Project:  The  overall  objective  of  the  proposed  project  is  to  reduce 

the  flood  risk  through  floodplain  restoration  along  the  Danube  and  other  DRB  rivers 
(M31). 

 

DANICE project: The DANube River Basin ICE focusses on conveyance investigation 
and icy flood management (M61). 

17  The  ICPDR  subsequently  clarified  that  this  general  approach  was  needed  to  reflect  the  heterogeneity  in  the 

basin (e.g., EU Member States and Non-EU countries, GDP per capita differences, etc.) 

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
 

The LAREDAR project focuses on hazard and risk mapping, risk management planning 

of the LAkes and REservoirs in the Danube (M41). 

 

 

 

The Coca-Cola Company and WWF are working in a seven-year partnership to restore 
vital  wetlands  and  floodplains  along  the  River  Danube  and  its  tributaries.  The  project 

aims to restore 53 km² of wetland habitat in the Danube region by 2020. The ICPDR is 
observer in the Steering Group of the partnership (M31). 

Improvement of flood forecasting (M41). 

Information  exchange  on  the  operation  of  hydraulic  structures.  Flood  forecasting  and 

flood management need real time information and data on the operation of flow control 

structures.  Pre-emptying  the  reservoirs  of  holding  back  water  to  fill  up  the  reservoirs 
influence the precision of the flood forecasting and can endanger the flood management 
of the downstream stretches (M43). 

 

Coordination in operative flood management is increasingly important with more floods 

affecting multiple countries and exceeding peak historical levels in the last years (M24). 

 

Development  of  elements  of  FRMP  for  trans-boundary  sub-units  of  common  interest 

(M24). 

 

 

 

 

 

Exchange of flood protection techniques, technologies and experiences (M24). 

Develop an education/training network (M43). 

Enhance coordination of operative flood protection methods and equipment (M24). 

Analysis of catchment reaction on different precipitation scenarios in the upper Danube 

including identification of retention sites (M61). 

ProDaM  –  Protect  Danube  and  Morava:  The  project  objective  is  to  optimize  the  joint 
flood management in  the border area of the Danube and Morava between Austria and 

the Slovak Republic (M24). 

 

DAMWARM project (Drava And Mura WAter and Risk Management) Project focuses 

on  better  and  more  efficient  Drava  and  Mura  River  Basin  and  flood  (and  other)  risk 
management (M24). 

 

FRISCO1:  Common  Slovenian  and  Croatian  transboundary  flood  risk  management 
project. The project addresses the flood risk at all of the Slovenian-Croatian borderline 

rivers (Kolpa/Kupa, Bregana, Sotla/Sutla, Drava, Mura and Dragonja rivers) (M24). 

17 

 
 
Several  projects  or  project  proposals/ideas  presented  as  transboundary  projects  were 

developed by the ICPDR and/or EUSDR PA5 and they shall:  

 

 

 

reflect the objectives and priorities set in iFRMP, 

have a transboundary character, 

help to implement the measures listed in Annex 2 of the iFRMP. 

There is no ranking or prioritization of these projects, as they are all considered as supportive 

to the implementation of the iFRMP. 

The iFRMP presents only the strategic level measures for the RB. Selecting the measures for 

this  plan,  the  priority  was  given  to  measures  with  downstream  effect  (according  to  Article 
7(4))  of  the  FD)  such  as  natural  water  retention,  warning  systems,  reduction  of  risk  from 

contaminated sites in floodplain areas or exchange of information. The top priority was given 
to  nature  based  solutions  (natural  water  retention  and  giving  more  space  to  rivers)  but  the 

importance of the structural measures was also recognized. 

A  river  basin  wide  cost-benefit  analysis  was  not  used  in  the  prioritisation  and  planning  of 

measures with a transboundary effect. A summary of existing national approaches to the cost-
benefit  analysis  (CBA)  is  provided.  As  a  result,  it  is  clear  that  some  Danube  countries  are 

using  some  sort  of  CBA  (Germany,  Austria,  Slovakia,  Hungary,  Slovenia,  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina, Romania, Bulgaria), others not. 

The measures listed above relate to the main common and coordinated measures18: 

Table 11: 

Joint coordinated measures 

M24  Prevention, Other prevention, Other measure to enhance flood risk prevention (may include, flood 
risk  modelling  and  assessment,  flood  vulnerability  assessment,  maintenance  programmes  or 
policies etc...) 

M31  Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the 
flow into natural or artificial drainage systems, such as overland flow interceptors and / or storage, 
enhancement of infiltration, etc  and including in-channel, floodplain  works and the reforestation 
of banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water 

M41  Preparedness,  Flood  Forecasting  and  Warning,  Measure  to  establish  or  enhance  a  flood 

forecasting or warning system 

M43  Preparedness,  Public  Awareness  and  Preparedness,  Measure  to  establish  or  enhance  the  public 

awareness or preparedness for flood events 

M61  Other  

18 Numbering according to ‘A User Guide to the Floods Reporting Schemas’ (Technical support in relation to the 

implementation of the FD), see: 

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/Floods/Floods_603_2016/resources/User%20Guide%20to%20the%20Floods%2

0schema%20v6.0.pdf  

18 

 
 
                                                 
 
The measures under the FD were coordinated with those under the WFD by the ICPDR which 

is  responsible  for  supporting  the  implementation  of  both  Directives.  To  produce  PFRAs, 
several  ICPDR  Contracting  Parties  used  data  that  they  had  collated  as  part  of  the  WFD 

process to assist with their contribution to the overall PFRA for the Danube. 

There  is  no  information  regarding  timing  of  the  implementation  of  measures  within  the 

iFRMP. Reporting on the Danube FRMP implementation progress will be done via national 
representatives to the ICPDR FP EG during the second cycle.  

1.1.8  Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Danube 

Taking  climate  change  into  account  is,  according  to  FD’s  Art  14(4),  a  requirement  for  the 

reviews of the second cycle of the FD. The iFRMP of the Danube contains a specific chapter 
on climate change. It focuses on what regional scenarios have been developed and the effects 

on  measures.  The  iFRMP  lists  measures  by  several  countries,  where  the  effects  of  climate 
change were taken into account (e.g. for Romania: Adapting construction, infrastructure and 

existing defence structures in terms of climate change). 

It is not clear whether the potential effects of climate change on the risk of flooding have been 

taken into account when setting objectives. It is stated that adapting flood risk management to 
climate change issues has to be included in the next cycle of FRMPs. Similarly, climate check 

of  flood  risk  measures  will  be  performed  in  the  future  reviews  of  the  iFRMP.  Whereas  the 
chapter on establishing objectives does not mention climate change, the dedicated chapter on 
climate  change  focuses  on  what  regional  scenarios  have  been  developed  and  the  effects  on 

measures.  However,  a  link  to  the  Danube  Climate  Adaptation  Study  developed  in  2012  is 
established. 

1.1.9  Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Danube RB 

The  most  outstanding  good  practice  examples  of  the  activities  of  the  ICPDR  regarding  the 

coordination of the FD implementation at the international level is the ICPDR’s large range of 
public participation activities discussed earlier. One exemplary  feature  is  that the comments 

on the draft iFRMP were all published online.  

Further, various risk maps for the entire Danube River Basin were developed for the iFMRP, 

i.e. maps on risk and population,  economic activity, installations with  the potential to  cause 
pollution and WFD protected areas. This uniform representation of flood risk for the Danube 

19 

 
 
 
 
is an excellent instrument for raising public awareness, but also for focusing the attention of 

risk management planners in all riparian countries on their common goal. 

1.1.10  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 

In preparing for the second cycle of the FD, the following recommendations can be made to 

further improve cooperation: 

 

The return periods to assess low probability flood risk are not the same in the Danube 

Basin.  Such  a  streamlining  should  be  envisaged  where  possible  as  it  could  facilitate 
common risk assessments. 

 

Information on the coordination mechanism for the risk assessment should be provided 

as this might be an inspiring example for other basins. 

 

The  sources  for  flooding  that  have  been  considered  in  the  definition  of  the 

transboundary APSFR should be specified in the iFRMP. 

 

Information from Ukraine, Moldova and Montenegro should be included in the FHRM 

as soon as made available. 

 

Information on the underlying assumptions/factors for producing the FHRMs should be 

provided.  

 

Co-financing of measures should be considered to strengthen cross-border cooperation 
but  also  to  ensure  that  the  measures  taken  are  following  an  overarching  concept  to 

reduce the risks. 

 

Any new information on CBA should be added if available to support the prioritisation 

and planning of measures with a transboundary effect. 

 

Climate change should be considered in the setting of objectives and in the prioritisation 

of measures. 

 

The  iFRMP  does  not  make  fully  clear  whether  joint  implementation  of  measures  will 
take  place  and  how  this  is  organised.  It  is  recommended  to  make  this  clearer  in  the 

second Plan. 

20 

 
 
 
1.2  Rhine River Basin 

1.2.1  Contextual information  

The Rhine RB is shared primarily by Germany, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, with 
smaller shares found in Austria, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium and Liechtenstein. The Rhine is 

considered  a  Category  1  RB,  as  an  international  RB  commission  has  been  set  up  –  The 
International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the  Rhine  (ICPR)19  –  to  enable  cooperation 
between the different EU Member States and non-EU countries and an iFRMP exists.  

Article  13  of  the  FD  was  applied  in  parts  of  the  basin  for  PFRA,  namely  in  Germany 

(Rhineland-Palatinate (Article  13(1)(a) all parts of the Rhine), Saarland  (Article  13(1)(a)  all 
parts of the Rhine), Bavaria (Article 13(1)(a) for the part Alpine Rhine – Lake Constance and 

Article 13(1)(a) as well as Article 13(3) for the part Main) and Hessen (Article 13(1)(b) for A-
level  waters),  in  the  Netherlands  (13(1)(b)),  in  Belgium  (Wallonia)  (13(1)(a)  and  13(2)),  in 

Luxemburg  (13(1)(a))  and  in  Liechtenstein  (13(2)).  In  other  Member  States  (France  and 
Austria)  and  German  states  (Lower  Saxony,  North-Rhine-Westphalia,  Baden-Württemberg 

and Thuringia) Article 4 was applied in the entire territory.  

1.2.2  Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB 

The  International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the  Rhine  (ICPR)  produced  an  iFRMP 
together with the EU Member States Italy, Austria, France, Germany, Luxemburg, Belgium, 
the Netherlands, and non-EU countries Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Within the ICPR, the 

common working group ‘Floods’ is tasked with supporting the implementation of the FD. 

The iFRMP20 for the Rhine RB consists of an international part and a national part (see the 
iFRMP, Annex 4 with links to the national parts). 

Although  not  a  requirement  of  the  FD,  it  is  not  clear  if  financial  resources  for  joint 

cooperation  (other  than  the  functioning  of  the  ICPR)  have  been  made  available  by  the 
participating states. The iFRMP does not provide any information whether there is financing 
for joint activities and projects21. The iFRMP states that based on the principle of solidarity 
(Article  7(4)),  the  states  should  avoid  taking  measures  which  due  to  their  extent  and  their 

impacts  considerably  increase  the  flood  risk  in  other  countries  along  the  river  upstream  or 
downstream  as  long  as  these  measures  are  not  coordinated  between  the  Member  States 

19 http://www.iksr.org  
20 More information regarding the iFRMP and the maps produced can be found at the link below, as well as an 

“atlas”, i.e. an FHRM, for the main stream of the Rhine from source to mouth (1.233 km): 

http://www.iksr.org/en/floods-directive/  
21  The  ICPR  subsequently  informed  that  two  projects  (calculations  of  the  effects  of  water  level  reduction 
measures and the joint development of a GIS tool enabling the calculation of the effects of measures on risk 
reduction) were jointly financed (ca. 300.000 €). 

21 

 
 
                                                 
concerned  and  a  common  solution  has  been  found.  Practical  examples  for  this  coordination 

are  given  in  Chapter  4.4  of  the  iFRMP  where  Figure  7  shows  the  calculated  transboundary 
impact on the reduction of flood peaks due to concrete measures lowering the water level.22 

The development of the iFRMP was done in consultation with the iRBMP. The iFRMP states 
that  as  far  as  measures  in  the  Rhine  RB  are  concerned,  possible  synergies  with  the 

environmental  targets  of  the  WFD  will  be  enhanced  and  the  environmental  effects  of 
measures liable to cause a deterioration of the ecological state of water bodies will be reduced 

to a minimum. Chapters 4.1 and 4.4 as well as Annexes 8 and 9 of the iFRMP show possible 
synergies between measures of the FD and measures of the WFD.23 

1.2.3  Consultation and publication of the iFRMP 

The draft of the first iFRMP for the Rhine RB (part A24) was published on the ICPR website25 
on 22 December 2014 and was thus available for public participation and consultation. This 
online consultation was done in parallel to that of the draft of the second iRBMP according to 

the WFD. This was also the case in most Member States of the Rhine catchment. 

Detailed information about the public consultation process is mentioned in Chapter 6 of the 

iFRMP.  ICPR  Observers  such  as  NGOs  were  involved  from  the  start  through  their 
participation  in  the  working  groups.  Further,  during  the  six  months  of  the  iFRMP  online 

consultation  period,  the  ICPR  received  statements  and  requests  for  adaptation  of  the  draft 
from some NGOs (observers to the ICPR) and other stakeholders. These requests have been 

discussed in  detail  within the working group Floods,  as the  ICPR body in charge, and were 
largely integrated into the iFRMP.26 

1.2.4  Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP 

The  PFRA  was  coordinated  on  the  international  level.27  The  iFRMP  provides  a  map  of 
APSFRs  for  the  whole  Rhine  RB  but  does  not  draw  overall  conclusions.  In  the  iFRMP 
reference is made to a special report on the identification of APSFRs within the whole basin28 
which  includes  more  details  and  conclusions.  There  is  no  information  on  which  sources  of 
flooding were considered29.  

22 Situation in 2010 and in 2020; see list of measures in Annexes 11-1 and 11-2 of the iFRMP. 
23 Situation in 2010 and in 2020; see list of measures in annexes 11-1 and 11-2 of the iFRMP. 
24 Part A = catchment areas > 2,500 km² 
25 www.iksr.org  
26  Information  about  this  specific  process  and  the  report  summarizing  the  discussions  and  agreements  in  the 
ICPR  can  be  found  in  German,  French  and  Dutch  here:  https://www.iksr.org/en/floods-directive/public-
participation/  

27 Chapter 2.1 of the iFRMP. 
28 http://www.iksr.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente_en/Reports/FD-1st_report_01.pdf  
29 There is brief information on discharge regimes in the Rhine basin (chapter. 1.2 of the iFRMP). 

22 

 
 
                                                 
1.2.5  Flood Hazard and Flood Risk maps in the iFRMP 

The iFRMP presents an overview map30 with river stretches or areas for which the Member 
States have drafted FHRMs. Further, there is a reference to a specific report31 on the drafting 
of FHRMs including the internationally agreed discharge values for the three flood scenarios 
(low,  medium  and  high  probability)  for  the  main  stream  of  the  Rhine  used  for  the  national 
maps32. However, these values are not specified in the Plan but in the separate report. 

The original  ICPR Rhine Atlas of 2001 was updated based on the national  FHRMs. Taking 
into  account  the  internationally  agreed  discharge  values  for  the  three  flood  scenarios33,  the 
Interactive Rhine Atlas 201534 presents updated maps of flood hazard and flood risk.  

No statistics on people potentially affected by the different flood scenarios, risk to economic 
activity,  risk  to  environment  or  risk  to  cultural  heritage  were  published  in  the  iFRMP. 
However, some general information can be found in chapter 1.2 of the iFRMP and the Rhine 
Atlas of 2015 maps the potential adverse consequences and the risk related to human health, 

environment,  cultural  heritage  and  economic  activities.  Further,  detailed  information  can  be 
found in the national reports35. 

1.2.6  Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk 

A  number  of  common  principles36  and  joint  objectives37  have  been  established  for  the 
management  of  flood  risk  at  the  international  level.  Links  with  the  Action  Plan  on  Floods 
(1998) of the ICPR are made. The iFRMP details the different objectives as follows: 

 

 

 

 

avoid new, unacceptable risks; 

reduce existing risks to an acceptable level; 

reduce adverse consequences during a flood event; 

reduce adverse consequences after a flood event. 

30 Chapter 2.2 of the iFRMP. 
31 “Report on the drafting of FHRM in the IRBD ‘Rhine’” 
http://www.iksr.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente_en/Communique_/FD_-_2nd_report.pdf  ;  References  in 

the iFRMP: Chapter 2.2 and Annex 7 

32 See Annex 3 of the “Report on the drafting of FHRM in the IRBD ‘Rhine’”. 
33 low, medium and high probability, see Annex 3 of the “Report on the drafting of FHRM in the IRBD Rhine”. 
34 https://www.iksr.org/en/documentsarchive/rhine-atlas/  
35 Annex 4 of the iFRMP. 
36 Chapter 3.1 of the iFRMP. 
37 Chapter 3.2 of the iFRMP. 

23 

 
 
 
                                                 
In Annex 4 of the iFRMP there is an assessment that shows how the different objectives are 

reflected at the Member States level. The review shows that the general targets  of flood risk 
management on the national and international level are the same in the whole basin. 

Potential effects of climate change on the risk of flooding and on flood risk management are 
briefly described in  the iFRMP38. However, they  were not  directly  taken into account  when 
setting objectives39. 

1.2.7  Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 

The  Member  States  in  the  Rhine  RB  have  agreed  upon  the  following  approach  for  the 
planning and implementation of measures:  

 

Regional or local measures which are known not to have any transboundary effects will 
be planned and implemented regionally/locally;  

 

For  regional  measures  with  transboundary  effects  there  will  first  be  an  exchange  of 

information at a bilateral level or within RB commissions for sub-basins, as for example 
the  Moselle-Sarre.  Eventually,  these  measures  must  be  coordinated  on  a  bilateral  or 

trilateral level in order to find joint solutions;  

 

The measures with regional effects mentioned under the second bullet point might also 

cause  supra-regional  effects.  Therefore,  such  measures  must  at  the  same  time  be 
included in the mutual exchange of information within the ICPR. Due to this approach, 
measures with transboundary effects are coordinated throughout the RB district40. The 
effect  of  planned  measures  must  be  determined  in  common41.  Aspects  of  cost-
effectiveness may be taken into account;  

 

Enhancement of national or regional agreements targeted at keeping floodplains free of 

all uses; exchange on these activities within the ICPR. 

In the iFRMP it is stated that the afore-described approach is applicable to measures such as 
creating  retention  areas,  dike  relocation,  room  for  the  river  and  measures  regulating 
discharges, the construction or strengthening of dikes, etc. It remains unclear whether or how 

other types of measures are affected by this approach. 

38 Chapter 1.3. 
39 The ICPR subsequently noted that this is not required by the FD for the first cycle. 
40 Examples of such measures are provided in the iFRMP, e.g. in Chapter 4.4 and Annexes 11-1 and 11-2 of the 

iFRMP. 

41 See Figure 7 in the iFRMP. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
Joint  principles for prioritising measures on an international  level  are mentioned in  Chapter 
3.1. The iFRMP plan lists common objectives42 and a set of concrete joint measures that seem 
to  be  a  high  priority  for  all  Member  States  and  aim  at:  (i)  international  coordination  of 

measures,  (ii)  improving  the  exchange  of  information  and  access  to  information;  (iii) 
improving flood forecasting and warning systems and at (iv) implementing measures aimed at 

lowering the water levels. The iFRMP states also that for the coordination of measures with 
supra-regional effects aspects of cost-effectiveness may be taken into account but no further 
information  is  provided43.  As  mentioned  previously,  the  iFRMP  states  that  Article  7(4)  has 
been applied in the basin and that the relationship between up and downstream countries plays 

an important role in flood risk management within the basin. 
The main common and coordinated measures44 are: 
Table 12: 
M21  Prevention,  Avoidance,  Measure  to  prevent  the  location  of  new  or  additional  receptors  in  flood 

Joint coordinated measures 

prone areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation 

M23  Prevention,  Reduction,  Measure  to  adapt  receptors  to  reduce  the  adverse  consequences  in  the 

event of a flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc...  

M24  Prevention, Other prevention, Other measure to enhance flood risk prevention (may include, flood 
risk  modelling  and  assessment,  e.g.  flood  vulnerability  assessment,  maintenance  programmes  or 
policies etc...)  

M31  Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the 
flow into natural or artificial drainage systems, such as overland flow interceptors and / or storage, 
enhancement of infiltration, etc  and including in-channel, floodplain  works and the reforestation 
of banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water 

M32  Protection,  Water  flow  regulation,  Measures  involving  physical  interventions  to  regulate  flows, 
such as the construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other 
on-line  storage  areas  or  development  of  existing  flow  regulation  rules),  and  which  have  a 
significant impact on the hydrological regime  

M33  Protection, Channel, Coastal and Floodplain Works, Measures involving physical interventions in 
freshwater  channels,  mountain  streams,  estuaries,  coastal  waters  and  flood-prone  areas  of  land, 
such  as  the  construction,  modification  or  removal  of  structures  or  the  alteration  of  channels, 
sediment dynamics management, dykes, etc.  

M34  Protection,  Surface  Water  Management,  Measures  involving  physical  interventions  to  reduce 
surface water flooding, typically, but not exclusively, in an urban environment, such as enhancing 
artificial drainage capacities or though sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) 

M35  Protection,  Other  Protection,  Other  measure  to  enhance  protection  against  flooding,  which  may 

include flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies 

M41  Preparedness,  Flood  Forecasting  and  Warning,  Measure  to  establish  or  enhance  a  flood 

forecasting or warning system 

M42  Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish 

or enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning 

M43  Preparedness,  Public  Awareness  and  Preparedness,  Measure  to  establish  or  enhance  the  public 

awareness or preparedness for flood events 

M61  Other  

42 Chapter 3.2 iFRMP. 
43 The ICPR developed a quantitative instrument aimed at the determination of flood risks and the effects of risk 
reducing measures (see Introduction, Chapter 5 and Annex 2 of the iFRMP). The ICPR subsequently noted 
that the FD does not require the inclusion of cost-effectiveness/-benefits in the FRMP. 

44 Numbering according to ‘A User Guide to the Floods Reporting Schemas’ (Technical support in relation to the 

implementation of the FD). 

25 

 
 
                                                 
It is stated in the iFRMP that with regards to the planned measures possible synergies with the 

environmental  targets  of  the  WFD  will  be  enhanced  and  the  environmental  effects  of 
measures liable to cause a deterioration of the ecological state of water bodies will be reduced 

to a minimum.  

For  some  of  the  measures,  in  particular  those  measures  aimed  at  lowering  the  flood  water 

levels,  a  timeframe  is  given  in  the  iFRMP  with  an  implementation  deadline  until  2020  and 
post 2020 (2030). 

According to the requirements of the FD, the progress of the measures implemented will be 
reviewed every six years. This is the task of the expert group within the ICPR. The effect of 

all measures implemented at a national level will have to be identified on a national as well as 
on an international level for the whole RB. It is possible to evaluate and calculate the effect of 

all measures on the (reduction of) flood risk, including those reducing the water level with the 
help of existing methods and a GIS instrument, both developed by the ICPR 45 46. For existing 
measures, this calculation has already been made within the ICPR Action Plan on Floods. In 
the future, these calculations will be carried out regularly. 

1.2.8  Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Rhine 

Climate change has to be taken into account in more depth from the second cycle of the FD 

(Art.14(4)) and onwards. The iFRMP addresses the issue of climate change and has a specific 
sub-section  on  how  climate  change  was  taken  into  account  in  the  flood  risk  assessment.47 
Aspects covered are: 

 

 

Impacts of climate change for the Rhine catchment;48 

Climate change effects on measures of flood risk management. 

The chapter on climate change first lists basin wide impacts from climate change based on a 
common assessment and the effects on measures of flood risk management. Also, following 
the instructions of the 15th Conference of Rhine Ministers, the ICPR has drafted a strategy to 
adapt  to  climate  change49.  However,  it  remains  unclear  if  these  scenarios  are  used  at  the 
national level. 

While  climate  change  is  not  mentioned  in  establishing  objectives  in  the  iFRMP,  the  plan  is 
linking selected measures to climate change50 and several of the common measures relate to 

45 https://www.iksr.org/en/topics/floods/flood-risk-tool/  
46 Specified in the introduction, Chapter 5 and Annex 2 of the iFRMP. 
47 Chapter 1.3 of the iFRMP. 
48 See also Annex 6. 
49 https://www.iksr.org/en/topics/climate-change-in-the-rhine-catchment/  
50 See Chapter 1.3 of the iFRMP. 

26 

 
 
                                                 
climate  change  issues51.  Many  of  the  common  measures  described  that  are  going  to  be 
implemented  in  the  Member  States  may  be  considered  as  no-regret  and  win-win  measures. 
They  also  have  a  positive  effect  on  changes  of  the  water  balance  brought  about  by  climate 

change.  

1.2.9  Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Rhine RB 

A number of good practice examples are available for the Rhine River Basin: 

 

The  iFRMP  states  that  internationally  agreed  discharge  values  for  the  three  flood 

scenarios  (low,  medium  and  high  probability)  have  been  used  (values  are  not  directly 
specified in the plan but are mentioned in a specific report). 

  Measures with transboundary effects are coordinated throughout the RB.  

 

 

National or regional agreements targeted at giving more room to the river and keeping 
floodplains free of all uses are enhanced by the ICPR. 

A coherent international Rhine Atlas 2015 from source to mouth (FHRMs of the iRBD 
‘Rhine’)  provides  a  uniform  representation  of  flood  risk  for  the  Rhine  and  thus  is  an 

excellent instrument for raising public awareness, but also for focusing the attention of 
risk management planners in all riparian countries on their common goal. 

 

Based on existing methods and a GIS instrument the effect of all measures on the flood 

risk, including those reducing the water level, can be calculated. 

 

 

Climate change effects on flood risk management measures are taken into account.  

The iFRMP refers to regional transboundary plans and activities (part B52, as opposed to 
part  A  which  is  the  iFRMP)  in  different  parts  of  the  Rhine  basin.  Various  bi-  or 

multilateral  procedures  and  activities  have  been  implemented  on  this  level,  such  as 
shared flood forecasting models and shared data flows. 

1.2.10  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 

In preparing for the second cycle of the FD, the following recommendations can be made to 

further improve cooperation: 

51 See Chapter 4 of the iFRMP. 
52 Annex 4 of the iFRMP 
https://www.iksr.org/en/floods-directive/flood-risk-management-plan/ and 
https://www.iksr.org/en/floods-directive/flood-risk-management-plan/national-reports/ 

27 

 
 
                                                 
 

Co-financing of measures should be considered to strengthen cross-border cooperation 

but  also  to  ensure  that  the  measures  taken  are  following  an  overarching  concept  to 

reduce the risks. 

  More specific information should be provided on how the principle of solidarity (Article 

7(4)) was implemented in practice. 

 

Public  awareness  raising  activities  of  the  iFRMP  at  the  international  level  could  be 

increased,  for  instance  by  integrating  the  international  dimension  into  the  national 
public awareness raising campaigns. 

 

Overall  conclusions  of  the  flood  risk  assessment  should  be  presented  for  the  entire 

iRBD. 

 

The  iFRMP  should  specify  the  sources  of  flooding  that  have  been  considered  in  the 

definition of the transboundary APSFR. 

 

Statistics  on  people  potentially  affected  by  the  different  flood  scenarios,  risk  to 

economic activity, risk to environment or risk to cultural heritage should be provided. 

 

Joint principles for prioritising measures on the international level should be set out, e.g. 

a methodology for CBA. 

 

Climate  change  should  be  considered  in  the  setting  of  objectives  and  prioritisation  of 

measures. 

1.3  Meuse River Basin 

1.3.1  Contextual information  

The  Meuse  RB  is  shared  between  France,  Germany,  Belgium,  the  Netherlands  and 

Luxembourg.  The  Meuse  is  considered  a  Category  1  RB,  as  an  international  river  basin 
commission  has  been  set  up  –  The  International  Meuse  Commission  (IMC)53  –  to  enable 
cooperation between the five Member States and an international iFRMP exists.  

53 http://www.meuse-maas.be/  

28 

 
 
 
                                                 
1.3.2  Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB 

The  IMC  has  produced  an  iFRMP54  together  with  the  Member  States  France,  Germany, 
Belgium,  the  Netherlands  and  Luxemburg.  Within  the  commission,  the  common  working 

group ‘Hydrology and Floods’ is tasked with supporting the international implementation of 
the FD. 

Although  not  a  requirement  of  the  FD,  it  is  not  clear  if  financial  resources  for  joint 
cooperation  (other  than  for  the  functioning  of  the  IMC)  have  been  made  available  by  the 

participating  countries,  e.g.  the  iFRMP  does  not  provide  any  information  whether  there  is 
financing for joint  activities and projects.  The iFRMP states that Article 7(4) of the FD has 

been applied in the basin and that countries should avoid taking measures which due to their 
extent  and  their  effect  considerably  increase  the  flood  risk  in  other  countries  upstream  or 

downstream in the same river catchment or sub-catchment as long as these measures are not 
coordinated between the Member States  concerned and  a common solution  has  been found. 
The  iFRMP  provides  information55  on  which  measures  need  to  be  coordinated  and/or 
information exchange is needed on the international level. 

The  development  of  the  iFRMP  was  done  in  consultation  with  the  development  of  the 
iRBMP, which was coordinated by the IMC. So far, the subject of flooding has been included 

in the iRBMP prepared for the WFD. In addition, an extra document with the assessment of 
synergies between measures under both Directives was developed. 

1.3.3  Consultation and publication of the Meuse iFRMP 

The public consultation for the iFRMP was the responsibility of the five countries. The IMC 

did  not  take  any  actions  related  to  public  consultation.  The  plan  was  only  published  online 
and it remains unclear whether any awareness  raising activities on the iFRMP took place at 

the country level for the iFRMP in paricular. 

1.3.4  Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Meuse 

The  PFRA  was  coordinated  on  the  international  level.  The  iFRMP  states  that  each  of  the 
bordering  countries  has  developed  its  risk  assessment,  but  for  water  bodies  at  the  borders 

bilateral  coordination  has  taken  place.  However,  the  iFRMP  does  not  provide  details 
regarding the content of the coordinated risk assessment. 

The iFRMP does not draw conclusions for the overall RB, still, maps of the entire catchment 
are presented. A map with  APSFRs in  the RB is given together with  a table that shows the 

54  More  information  regarding  the  iFRMP  and  the  maps  produced  can  be  found  here:  http://www.meuse-

maas.be/Directives/Directive-Inondations.aspx. 

55 Chapter 5 of the iFRMP and in the appendix 3. 

29 

 
 
                                                 
transboundary waters and gives some basic information on how the coordination between the 

countries was organised. The source is provided: Only fluvial flooding has been considered.  

1.3.5  Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Meuse 

The  probabilities  of  flooding  assumed  for  developing  the  flood  hazard  maps  in  the  five 
riparian  countries  were  different  for  low  probability  and  high  probability  flooding.  For  low 

probability flooding return periods from a 100 up to a 1 000 year were assumed and for high 
probability flooding from 10 up to 30 years. For medium probability flooding the same return 

period of a 100 years was applied in all five Member States. 

No  statistics  for  the  different  scenarios  on  people  potentially  affected,  on  risks  to  economic 

activity, risks to the environment and risks to cultural heritage were published in the iFRMP. 
This information is available in the national FRMPs. 

1.3.6  Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk 

For  the  management  of  flood  risk  at  the  international  level,  joint  objectives  have  been 

established  by  the  five  Member  States.  The  objectives  are  defined  at  strategic  level  and 
operational levels. The strategic level objectives which are listed in the iFRMP are: 

 

 

 

Joint  and  efficient  responsibility  based  on  the  solidarity  principle:  The  aim  is  to 
determine the most appropriate level so as not to take higher-level measures which can 

be implemented more efficiently at the local level; 

Solidarity in the case of flooding; 

Proportionality  of  measures:  Creation  of  a  prioritization  program,  if  possible  on  the 

basis of a CBA. 

The three operational objectives are: 

 

 

 

Effective international coordination of measures with transboundary effects; 

Improvement of the flood forecasting and warning; 

Improve flood risk knowledge. 

The measures are based on the operational objectives. 

The international objectives were derived based on the national objectives defined by the five 

Member States.  

30 

 
 
The potential effects of climate change on the risk of flooding have been taken into account 
by the Member States when setting objectives56.  

1.3.7  Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 

A joint principle in planning and implementing measures was defined by one of the objectives 
on  the  international  level  -  the  ‘Proportionality  of  measures’,  i.e.  the  creation  of  a 

prioritization program for measures. It is stated that a ranking of measures on the international 
level was performed considering the mobilized human, technical and financial resources of all 

stakeholders and the expected benefits. 

The iFRMP does not mention whether a CBA57 was used in the prioritisation and planning of 
measures  with  a  transboundary  effect  (although  this  is  stated  as  a  common  objective). 
However,  it  mentions  that  CBA  is  done  at  the  Member  States  level  following  different 

approaches and is mostly used in the case of construction measures. 

As mentioned previously, the iFRMP states that Article 7(4) has been applied in the basin and 

that  the  relationship  between  up  and  downstream  countries  plays  an  important  role  in  flood 
risk  management  within  the  basin.  The  iFRMP  does  not  provide  information  how  this  is 

handled in practice. 

The main common and coordinated measures58 are: 

Table 13: 

Joint coordinated measures 

M41 

Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood 
forecasting or warning system 

M61  Other  

The iFRMP states that measures under the FD were coordinated with those under the WFD by 

the ICM. In the Annex of the iFRMP an overview over potential synergies between measures 
under the FD and objectives of the WFD is provided. Measures are judged based on whether 
they  support  WFD  objectives,  whether  they  are  not  relevant  for  the  WFD  objectives  or 
whether they are in conflict with WFD objectives. 

56 Chapter 9 of the iFRMP describes how this has been done. 
57  The  IMC  subsequently  noted  that  the  FD  does  not  make  it  obligatory  for  Member  States  to  discuss  cost-

effectiveness/-benefits in the FRMP. 

58 Numbering according to ‘A User Guide to the Floods Reporting Schemas’ (Technical support in relation to the 

implementation of the FD), see: 

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/Floods/Floods_603_2016/resources/User%20Guide%20to%20the%20Floods%2

0schema%20v6.0.pdf  

31 

 
 
 
                                                 
There is no information regarding an agreed timing of the implementation of measures in the 

iFRMP;  the  implementation  of  measures  is  a  responsibility  of  the  national/regional 
authorities. 

The progress in the implementation of measures is monitored in a joint way based on a set of 
indicators which relate to each objective in the iFRMP:  

The indicators for objective 1 are: 

 

 

 

New national polices in FRM; 

Local measures, which have an impact on other countries within the basin; 

Results  of  coordination  between  riparian  states  and  the  IMC  on  measures  which  can 
have a negative impact on other countries. 

The indicators for objective 2 are: 

 

 

 

Results of the agreement on the exchange on hydrological data; 

Results from technical exchange; 

Other improvements on the forecasting of floods. 

The indicators for objective 3 are: 

 

 

Exchanged data by countries/regions; 

Common products and methods developed by the riparian states. 

The  working  group  on  ‘Flood  Management’  in  the  ICM  is  responsible  for  monitoring  and 

control. 

1.3.8  Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Meuse 

The  summary  of  the  IMC  states  that  Member  States  have  started  to  work  on  joint  flow 
patterns  based  on  national  climate  scenarios.  Chapter  9  of  the  iFRMP  provides  information 

how the issue of climate change was considered in the setting of objectives or in the selection 
of measures59. 

59 The IMC subsequently noted that climate change issues will be further integrated in the second cycle. 

32 

 
 
                                                 
1.3.9  Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Meuse RB 

A  good  practice  example  of  how  to  implement  the  FD  at  the  international  level  from  the 
Meuse RB is that the Member States have started to work on joint flow patterns. Further, the 

fact that there are indicators related to objectives can be considered as good practice. 

1.3.10  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 

 In preparing for the second cycle of the FD, the following recommendations can be made to 
further improve cooperation: 

 

Co-financing of measures should be considered to strengthen cross-border cooperation 
but  also  to  ensure  that  the  measures  taken  are  following  an  overarching  concept  to 

reduce the risks. 

  More  specific  information  should  be  provided  on  how  the  principle  of  solidarity  was 

implemented in practice. 

 

Public  awareness  raising  activities  of  the  iFRMP  at  an  international  level  could  be 
increased,  for  instance  by  integrating  the  international  dimension  into  the  national 

public awareness raising campaigns. 

  More  information  should  be  provided  on  how  the  PFRA  was  coordinated  at  the 

international level. 

 

 

 

Overall conclusions of the flood risk assessment should be presented for the entire RB. 

The return periods to assess high and low probability flood risk are not the same in the 

Meuse  Basin.  A  converge  should  be  envisaged  wherever  possible  as  it  supports 
common risk assessments. 

Statistics  on  people  potentially  affected  by  the  different  flood  scenarios,  risk  to 
economic activity, risk to environment, risk to cultural heritage should be provided. 

 

Climate  change  considerations  should  be  introduced  in  the  setting  of  objectives  and 

prioritisation of measures. 

 

It should be considered to introduce a CBA for the planning and prioritising of measures 

with a transboundary effect. 

33 

 
 
 
1.4  Elbe River Basin 

1.4.1  Contextual information  

The  Elbe  RB  is  shared  primarily  by  the  Czech  Republic  and  Germany,  with  smaller  shares 
found in Austria and Poland. The Elbe is considered a Category 1 RB as an international river 

basin commission has been set up – The International Commission for the Protection of the 
Elbe River (ICPER)60 – to enable cooperation between the four Member States and an iFRMP 
exists.  

1.4.2  Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB 

The  Elbe  RB  is  coordinated  through  the  International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the 
Elbe  River,  which  has  produced  an  international  iFRMP  together  with  the  Czech  Republic, 
Germany,  Austria  and  Poland61.  Within  the  ICPER,  the  common  working  group  ‘Flood 
Protection’ is tasked with supporting the implementation of the FD. 

Although  not  a  requirement  of  the  FD,  it  is  not  clear  if  financial  resources  for  joint 
cooperation (other than for the functioning of the International Commission for the Protection 

of the Elbe River) have been made available by the participating states and the iFRMP does 
not  provide  any  information  whether  there  is  financing  for  joint  activities  and  projects.  The 

iFRMP  mentions  that  measures  are  implemented  on  a  national  level.  However,  the 
information  submitted  by  Germany  to  WISE,  states  that  the  iFRMP  for  the  Elbe  includes 
measures  for  Germany  and  the  Czech  Republic  where  cross-border  solutions  needed  to  be 

found.  The  iFRMP  states  that  Article  7(4)  has  been  applied  in  the  basin  and  that  the 
relationship between upstream and downstream countries plays an important role in flood risk 

management within the RB. 

The development of the iFRMP was done in consultation with the WFD. The measures in the 

iFRMPs were aligned with those under the WFD. The implementation of both Directives was 
coordinated, according to the ICPER, in particular regarding the improvement of efficiency, 
information exchange and synergies in achieving the environmental objectives of the WFD.  

1.4.3  Consultation and publication of the Elbe iFRMP 

The  iFRMP  provides  an  overview  of  the  public  consultation  that  took  place.  International 
workshops on risk assessment and risk and hazard maps and an international workshop on the 

management plans took place. An international Elbe Forum was held to inform the public on 
the current state of play of both the WFD and the FD. A summary of the results of the PFRA 

for  the  international  basin  was  published  in  German  and  Czech  and  made  available  to  the 

60 http://www.ikse-mkol.org/en/  
61 Austria and Poland share only small parts of Elbe River basin (less than 1 %) 

34 

 
 
                                                 
public. All documents, including the draft FRMPs and the risk maps have been published on 

the  website  of  the  Elbe  Commission.  There  was  also  an  international  Elbe  Forum  on  the 
iFRMP and the iRBMP.  

1.4.4  Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Elbe 

In  the  frame  of  the  working  group  ‘Flood  Protection’  of  the  ICPER,  each  Member  State 
informed  other  delegates  about  their  methods  implementing  the  FD;  all  topics,  aspects  and 

steps  of  implementation  with  respect  to  the  FD  had  been  consulted  amongst  the  delegates. 
However, as Austria and Poland did not identify APSFRs in their share of the Elbe RB, most 

of  the  information  in  the  iFRMP  refers  to  the  German  and  Czech  approaches.  During  the 
comparison  of  the  methodologies  for  the  risk  assessment  developed  by  Germany  and  the 

Czech Republic, the Elbe river commission found that comparable risk areas were identified 
by the two Member States.  

The iFRMP details the PFRA and its conclusions for each Member State separately, but does 
not  draw  conclusions  for  the  overall  RB.  Information  reported  by  Austria  and  Germany  to 

WISE  state  that  the  risk  assessment  was  coordinated  through  the  working  group  under  the 
Elbe  Commission;  however,  the  information  does  not  clarify  for  which  specific  topics.  The 

iFRMP states that there was a workshop held  between the Czech Republic and Germany to 
discuss  and  compare  methodologies  for  the  PFRA.  Although  each  Member  State  had 

developed  different  methodologies,  the  results  were  the  same.  While  the  methodologies 
themselves were not coordinated during their development, the results of the methodologies – 
i.e.  the  identification  of  APSFRs  was  compared  to  ensure  that  the  different  methodologies 

nevertheless resulted in the same identified risk areas. 

The  same  sources  of  flooding  were  considered  in  the  common  APSFRs  between  the  Czech 

Republic and Germany. The iFRMP states that in the Czech Republic fluvial floods caused by 
regional  precipitation  were  taken  into  account  whereas  flooding  from  heavy  rain  leading  to 

flash floods is only locally important  and has not resulted in the designation of APSFR and 
that groundwater causing floods were not taken into account. In Germany, coastal and fluvial 

floods  were  taken  into  account.  For  both  Austria  and  Poland  general  information  regarding 
the methodology  for identifying risk areas is  presented in  the iFRMP;  these sections do not 
mention which sources of flooding were considered in Austria and Poland62.  

62 The ICPER subsequently clarified that: 
(a) Austria considered pluvial and fluvial historic flood events, however, Austria identified only APSFRs based 

on fluvial floods due to the defined thresholds for significance. 

(b) In  Poland  all  types  of  floods  (apart  from  floods  from  sewage  systems  and  tsunamis)  were  analysed  taking 
into  account  available  historical  data  and  the  classification  of  floods  used  thus  far  in  Poland.  Ultimately, 
fluvial (river) and coastal floods were identified as significant types of floods, differentiating them in terms 
of the mechanism and characteristics. 

35 

 
 
                                                 
1.4.5  Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Elbe 

The probabilities of flooding used for developing the flood hazard maps are mostly the same 
between the Czech Republic and Germany. For low probability flooding, the Czech Republic 

used a return period of 500 years and Germany a return period of 200 years for the main river 
and between 200-1 000 years for all other waters. For medium probability flooding, both the 

Czech  Republic  and  Germany  used  a  return  period  of  100  years.  For  high  probability 
flooding, the Czech Republic used a return period of five and 20 years in all APSFR.63 On the 
other hand, Germany used a return period of 20 years for the main river and between 10-25 
years for all other waters. 

Common  risk  maps  were  developed  for  the  Elbe  and  were  published  on  the  Elbe 
Commission’s  website.  An  interactive  map  with  flood  risk  areas  for  the  whole  basin  is 
available, from which access to the national maps is provided64. 

The  following  statistics  on  people  potentially  affected,  risk  to  economic  activity,  risk  to 
environment and risk to cultural heritage were published in the iFRMP65:  
Table 14: 

Areas to be flooded in Km2 (Status 11.08.2015) 

Probability 

high 

medium  

low 

Fluvial flooding 

Seawater flooding 

CZ 

695 

895 

1 141 

DE 

2 424 

4 325 

8 307 

Total 

3 119 

5 220 

9 448 

CZ 

0 

0 

0 

DE 

41 

43 

661 

Total 

41 

43 

661 

Table 15:  

Number of affected inhabitants (Status: 11.08.2015) 

Fluvial flooding 

Seawater flooding 

Probability 

CZ 

DE 

Total 

CZ 

high 

medium  

low 

26 232 

101 520 

127 752 

103 104 

373 129 

476 233 

323 942 

958 583 

1 282 525 

0 

0 

0 

DE 

2 860 

3 910 

Total 

2 860 

3 910 

609 000 

609 000 

Table 16:  

Impacted IED-, or PRTR- und IPPC- facilities (Status: 11.08.2015) 

Probability 

high 

medium  

low 

Fluvial flooding 

Seawater flooding 

CZ 

2 

25 

66 

DE 

Total 

CZ 

71 

170 

861 

73 

195 

927 

0 

0 

0 

DE 

57 

62 

159 

Total 

57 

62 

159 

63 This rule is defined by regulation no. 236/2002. 
64 See http://geoportal.bafg.de/mapapps/resources/apps/IKSE_DE/index.html?lang=de 
65 Please note that the figures given in the table below may be counted several times when either several fluvial 
flood risk areas in places of watercourse confluences or seawater flood risk areas and fluvial flood risk areas 
overlap. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 17: 

Number  of  areas  in  which  economic  activities  or  the  environment  is 

impacted (Status: 11.08.2015) 

Potential negative impacts 

Economic activities 

Environment (general) 

Medium Probability 

Fluvial flooding 

Seawater flooding 

CZ 
(111) 

103 

70 

DE 
(281) 

Total 
(392) 

235 

235 

338 

305 

CZ 
(0) 

0 

0 

DE 
(1) 

1 

1 

Total (1) 

1 

1 

For  cultural  heritage  sites  affected,  specific  sites  are  listed  but  are  not  linked  to  probability 

scenarios. Five sites are mentioned in Germany and two are mentioned in the Czech Republic. 

1.4.6  Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk 

The iFRMP details the different objectives as defined by the Czech Republic and Germany. 
They were not commonly developed. However, the objectives set by the Czech Republic and 

Germany are very similar.  

In the Czech Republic, the most important objective is to reduce the risk to inhabitants due to 

floods, as well as reduce risk on economic activities, cultural and historical areas, taking into 
account  the  precautionary  principle.  Three  general  objectives  were  set:  1)  Prevent  the 

emergence of new risks and to reduce the size of areas with an unacceptable risk; 2) Reduce 
flood  risk  and  3)  Improve  the  precaution  of  inhabitants,  the  resilience  of  buildings, 

infrastructure, economic and other activities against the negative effects of floods. 

In  Germany,  four  general  objectives  were  set  at  national  level:  1)  Avoid new  risks  in  flood 

risk areas; 2) Reduce existing risks in flood risk areas; 3) Reduce the adverse effects during a 
flood and 4) Reduce the adverse effects after a flood. 

The general objectives established in the iFRMP are applicable regardless of potential effects 
from climate change on the risk of flooding The chapter on establishing objectives does not 

mention climate change. The international plan refers to a study from 2011 where it is stated 
that  at  present,  the  link  between  medium  and  long-term  climate  change  and  the  frequency, 

duration and intensity of future floods and droughts is not yet sufficiently clear that it could be 
used as a reliable basis for planning water quantity and flood risk management. The specific 

chapter  on  climate  change  focuses  on  what  regional  scenarios  have  been  developed  and  on 
overarching  climate  change  strategies  but  does  not  make  a  link  to  the  established  common 

objectives in the iFRMP. 

37 

 
 
 
 
1.4.7  Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 

There  are  common  principles  for  defining  groups  of  measures.  The  individual  measures  in 
each  group  are  nationally  defined.  Each  group  of  measures  describes  the  principles  behind 

their selection. It is unclear whether there are common principles also for prioritising specific 
measures, still the iFRMPs mentions that the following measures will be prioritised: measures 

in  areas  with  significant  flood  risk;  prevention  measures,  especially  those  financed  by 
municipalities  or  property  owners;  and  measures  to  protect  inhabitants  and  assets,  e.g. 

preparation of information systems. However, the iFRMP also states that measures financed 
through  public  investments,  especially  from  national  or  regional  programmes,  will  be 

prioritised by the authorities providing the financing. 

A cost-benefit analysis was not employed for the prioritisation and planning of measures with 
a  transboundary  effect.66  The  iFRMP  states  that  an  assessment  methodology  regarding  the 
effects of the measures has not been developed at international level.  

The main common and coordinated groups of measures67 are: 

Table 18: 

Joint coordinated measures 

M21  Prevention,  Avoidance,  Measure  to  prevent  the  location  of  new  or  additional  receptors  in  flood 

prone areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation 

M22  Prevention,  Removal  or  relocation,  Measure  to  remove  receptors  from  flood  prone  areas,  or  to 

relocate receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard 

M23  Prevention,  Reduction,  Measure  to  adapt  receptors  to  reduce  the  adverse  consequences  in  the 

event of a flood, actions on buildings, public networks, etc...  

M24  Prevention, Other prevention, Other measure to enhance flood risk prevention (may include, flood 
risk  modelling  and  assessment,  flood  vulnerability  assessment,  maintenance  programmes  or 
policies etc...) 

M31  Protection  Natural  flood  management  /  runoff  and  catchment  management,  Measures  to  reduce 
the  flow  into  natural  or  artificial  drainage  systems,  such  as  overland  flow  interceptors  and  /  or 
storage,  enhancement  of  infiltration,  etc  and  including  in-channel,  floodplain  works  and  the 
reforestation of banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water 

M32  Protection,  Water  flow  regulation,  Measures  involving  physical  interventions  to  regulate  flows, 
such as the construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other 
on-line  storage  areas  or  development  of  existing  flow  regulation  rules),  and  which  have  a 
significant impact on the hydrological regime 

66 The ICPER subsequently noted that a cost-benefit-analysis (CBA) is not mandatory according to the FD. For 
instance, in Germany a CBA was not considered appropriate at the level of the FRMP, as the FRMPs are at a 
strategic and aggregated level. The measures too are defined at a strategic level. Instead, a CBA is mandatory 
in the detailed planning process for any technical measure on federal state or regional level. 

67 Numbering according to ‘A User Guide to the Floods Reporting Shemas’ (Technical support in relation to the 

implementation of the FD) see : 

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/Floods/Floods_603_2016/resources/User%20Guide%20to%20the%20Floods%2

0schema%20v6.0.pdf  

38 

 
 
                                                 
M33  Protection, Channel, Coastal and Floodplain Works, Measures involving physical interventions in 
freshwater  channels,  mountain  streams,  estuaries,  coastal  waters  and  flood-prone  areas  of  land, 
such  as  the  construction,  modification  or  removal  of  structures  or  the  alteration  of  channels, 
sediment dynamics management, dykes, etc.  

M34  Protection,  Surface  Water  Management,  Measures  involving  physical  interventions  to  reduce 
surface water flooding, typically, but not exclusively, in an urban environment, such as enhancing 
artificial drainage capacities or though sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) 

M35  Protection,  Other  Protection,  Other  measure  to  enhance  protection  against  flooding,  which  may 

include flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies 

M41  Preparedness,  Flood  Forecasting  and  Warning,  Measure  to  establish  or  enhance  a  flood 

forecasting or warning system 

M42  Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish 

or enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning 

M51  Recovery  and  Review  (Planning  for  the  recovery  and  review  phase  is  in  principle  part  of 
preparedness),  Individual  and  societal  recovery,  Clean-up  and  restoration  activities  (buildings, 
infrastructure,  etc),  Health  and  mental  health  supporting  actions,  incl.  managing  stress  Disaster 
financial  assistance  (grants,  taxCons),  incl.  disaster  legal  assistance,  disaster  unemployment 
assistance, Temporary or permanent relocation, Other 

M52  Recovery and Review, Environmental recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (with several 

sub-topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous materials containers) 

M53  Recovery  and  Review,  Other,  Other  recovery  and  review  Lessons  learnt  from  flood  events 

Insurance policies 

The iFRMP states that measures under the FD were coordinated with those under the WFD to 

maximise  synergies  and  reduce  conflicts  insofar  as  possible.  Measures  were  grouped  into 
three  categories:  Measures  that  support  the  objectives  of  the  WFD,  measures  that  cause 

conflicts, and measures that are not relevant to the WFD. The planned measures in the Elbe 
basin were assessed against these categories, with the majority of the measures supporting the 

WFD. The chapter ends by stating that more information can be found in the national FRMPs. 

There  is  no  information  regarding  timing  of  the  implementation  of  measures  within  the 

iFRMP. 

The  iFRMP  states  that  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  measures  will  take  place  at 

national level, so there is no common monitoring approach in the RB. 

1.4.8  Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Elbe 

The  chapter  on  PFRA  has  a  specific  sub-section  on  how  climate  change  was  taken  into 
account in the assessment. It first lists climate research projects that have been carried out in 

the last years within the Elbe region. Some of these projects are regional or national but the 
GLOWA project mentioned looked at the Elbe region as a whole. The chapter also states that 

under  the  Elbe  commission  a  document  was  produced  summarizing  the  previous  research, 
including presenting conclusions. It is not clear, however, if this resulted in the same climate 

scenario being used amongst the riparian countries. 

39 

 
 
 
There is no information in the iFRMP regarding if and how climate change was considered in 

the setting of objectives or in the selection of national measures. 

1.4.9  Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Elbe RB 

 

In the consultation  and publication of the Elbe River Basin’s iFRMPs a good practice 

example  is  that  a  summary  of  the  results  of  the  PFRA  for  the  international  basin  was 
published in German and Czech and made available to the public. 

 

The interactive map with flood risk areas for the whole basin, with access to the national 
maps. 

1.4.10   Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 

In preparing for the second cycle of the FD, the following recommendations can be made to 

further improve cooperation: 

 

The return periods to assess flood risk are not the same in the Elbe Basin, especially for 

low  probability  events.  Convergence  should  be  envisaged  wherever  possible  as  it 
supports common risk assessments. 

  More  specific  information  should  be  provided  on  how  the  principle  of  solidarity  was 

implemented in practice. 

 

Co-financing of measures should be considered to strengthen cross-border cooperation, 

but  also  to  ensure  that  the  measures  taken  are  following  an  overarching  concept  to 
reduce the risks. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Further information on potential basin wide impacts (e.g. number of buildings affected, 
area of agricultural land affected, number of areas under Article 6 WFD, etc.) should be 

provided. 

Overall conclusions of the flood risk assessment should be presented for the entire RB. 

The sources of flooding that have been considered in the definition of the transboundary 

APSFR should be specified. 

The  iFRMP  should  be  more  specific  about  the  common  principles  for  prioritising 

measures. 

It should be considered to introduce a CBA for the planning and prioritising of measures 

with a transboundary effect. 

Climate change should be considered in the setting of objectives and in the prioritisation 

of measures in the Elbe RB. 

40 

 
 
 
1.5  Odra River Basin 

1.5.1  Contextual information  

The Odra River Basin (RB) is shared by the Czech Republic, Germany and Poland. The Odra 
is considered a Category 1 RB, as an international river basin commission has been set up  – 
The International Commission for the Protection of the Odra River against Pollution (ICPO)68 
–  to  enable  cooperation  between  the  three  Member  States  and  an  iFRMP  exists.  The 

objectives of the ICPO in the field of flood protection in the Odra RB are:  

 

 

preventing and permanently reducing the risk of flood damage; 

coordinating the implementation of the WFD and of the FD.  

1.5.2  Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB 

The ICPO, has produced an international FRMP (iFRMP) together with the Czech Republic, 
Germany  and  Poland.  Within  the  ICPO,  the  common  working  group  ‘Flood’  is  tasked  with 

the implementation of the FD.  

The activities of the ICPO (including meetings for joint  cooperation) are financed primarily 

from  the  contributions  of  the  three  parties  of  the  Agreement,  as  well  as  from  donations, 
subsidies, interest and funds from other sources.  

The  iFRMP  states  that  Article  7(4)  of  the  FD  has  been  applied  in  the  basin  and  that  the 
relationship  between  up  and  downstream  countries  plays  an  important  role  in  flood  risk 

management within the basin. The information is general and there is no mention of common 
financing of measures6970. 

The development of the iFRMP was done in consultation with the iRBMP. Measures of the 
FD  were  coordinated  with  those  under  the  WFD  to  maximise  synergies71,  to  ensure 
information exchange and to ensure that also WFD objectives are met.  

68 http://www.mkoo.pl  
69  Poland  subsequently  noted  that  information  about  activities  (including  financial  matters)  is  contained  in 
separate agreements, documents, plans or programs. For example, the most important document for financing 
activities between Poland and Germany is the agreement between the Government of the Republic of Poland 
and  the  Government  of  the  Federal  Republic  of  Germany  on  the  joint  improvement  of  the  situation  on 
waterways on the Polish-German border (flood protection among others). 

70 It was subsequently clarified that coordination for the implementation of Article 7(4) is included in the scope 
of the G2 Working Group's activities within the ICPO. One of the tasks of the working group is to exchange 
information on the implementation of strategically significant, cross-border activities in the field of flood risk 
management, in particular measures included in the iFRMP for the Oder. 

71 An assessment of potential synergies to reach the objectives of both Directives was carried out. It is further 

stated that detailed information on measures can be found in the national Plans. 

41 

 
 
                                                 
1.5.3  Consultation and publication of the Odra iFRMP 

The iFRMP provides an overview of the public consultation that took place. An international 
Forum and Joint info days on the iFRMP were held to inform the public on the current state of 

play  of  both  the  WFD  and  the  FD.  A  summary  of  the  results  of  the  PFRA  for  the  RB  was 
made available to the public. All documents, including the draft FRMPs and the FHRMs were 

published  on  the  website  of  the  Odra  River  Commission.  There  was  also  an  international 
conference on the implementation of the WFD and the FD, where the latest results on flood 

risk management were presented. 

1.5.4  Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Odra 

The  risk  assessment  has  been  coordinated  to  some  extent  on  the  international  level.  The 
iFRMP states that the Member States have exchanged the necessary information to carry out 

the risk assessment and to produce the relevant maps. However, the detailed risk assessment 
was  different  in  the  countries  and  is  described  separately  for  each  Member  State  even  if  a 

common  set  of  criteria  (not  further  specified)  have  been  used.  Furthermore,  the  potential 
adverse consequences of future floods considered in the different Member States are different. 

The  general  topics  are  the  same  though:  Human  health,  Environment,  Cultural  heritage, 
Economic activity, but the sub-categories differ. 

The conclusions of the PFRA, FHRMs and of the “Action Programme of Flood Protection of 
Oder  River”  are  presented  for  the  entire  international  basin  and  can  be  summarized  as 

follows: 

  Maintaining  or  increasing  the  retention  capacity  in  individual  river  areas,  in  order  to 

 

 

 

 

 

 

effectively limit the risk of flooding. 

Reduce the vulnerability of flood-prone areas. 

Improve the legal framework for management and building in dyke protected areas with 

residual flood risks. 

The  methods  for  hydrologic  meteorological  prognosis,  prediction  and  pre-warning  are 

to be further developed. 

Strengthen  the  dialogue  with  the  potentially  flood  affected  population  to  increase 

awareness about the flood risks as well as their self-sufficiency.  

Develop  legal  and  economic  instruments  for  flood  management  (e.g.  reduction  of  the 

damage potential through financial incentives for resettlement). 

Regular modernization of the icebreaker fleet and the related infrastructure in the area 
of the Lower and Middle Odra. 

42 

 
 
 

For flood risk management, an adapted maintenance of the coastal and inland waters as 

well as the related water service facilities are indispensable. 

1.5.5  Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Odra 

The  probabilities  of  flooding  used  for  developing  the  flood  hazard  maps  differ  in  the  three 

Member States for low and high probability flooding. For low probability flooding Germany 
used a return period of 200 years and Poland and the Czech Republic a return period of 500 

years. For high probability flooding Germany used return periods between 10 and 25  years, 
Poland a return period of 10 years and the Czech Republic a return period of five or 20 years. 
Only for medium probability flooding, which is set at equal or larger than a 100 year return 

period in the Directive, the same return period was used in all three Member States namely 
100 years. 

A common risk map for the whole basin was developed and is available in the iFRMP, but no 
hazard  map  has  been  developed.  Instead  there  is  an  interactive  map  on  the  ICPO  website 
which  offers  access  to  all  national  risk  and  hazard  maps72.  No  statistics  for  the  different 
flooding scenarios on people potentially  affected, on risks to  economic activity,  risks to  the 

environment and risks to cultural heritage were included in the iFRMP. 

1.5.6  Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk 

The  iFRMP  includes  a  table  with  joint  objectives  for  the  management  of  flood  risk  at  the 
international  level  which  are  then  further  detailed  into  sub  targets.  There  is  no  clear 
description how the joint objectives have been agreed on73. The general objectives are: 

 

 

 

 

Avoid new risks; 

Reduction of existing risks; 

Reduction of adverse consequences during a flood event; 

Reduction of adverse consequences after a flood even. 

The objectives are the same for all Member States of the ICPO. 

It is not clear whether the potential effects of climate change on the risk of flooding have been 

considered when setting objectives. The chapter on establishing objectives does not mention 
climate  change.  The  specific  chapter  on  climate  change  focuses  on  what  regional  scenarios 

have  been  developed  and  overarching  climate  change  strategies  but  there  is  no  link  to  the 
establishment of common objectives at the RB level. 

72 See http://www.mkoo.pl/index.php?mid=28&aid=675&lang=DE 
73  Poland  subsequently  clarified  that  during  the  meetings  of  the  "Flood"  working  group’s  (G2)  discussions, 

among others, goals were jointly set. 

43 

 
 
                                                 
1.5.7  Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 

There  are  some  joint  principles  for  defining  and  prioritising  measures  which  relate  to  two 
transboundary projects and the agreed ‘flood protection program 2004’. In the latter a list of 

priority actions/measures has been agreed upon, which is the basis for the joint work. Actions 
and  priorities  are  indicated  in  the  national  FRMPs,  taking  into  account  international 

agreements, such as the Polish-German agreement. 

The  bilateral  agreement  between  Poland  and  Germany  on  improving  water  transport  on  the 

Odra  river  also  sets  priorities  as  regard  to  a  common  flow  regulation  concept.  There  is  no 
information in the iFRMP on whether a cost-benefit analysis was used in the prioritisation and 

planning of measures with a transboundary effect.  

No  main  common  and  coordinated  measures  were  defined  in  the  iFRMP.  Chapter  4.2 

describes  the  general  measure  categories  which  are  of  importance  on  supra-regional  or  RB 
level.  Further, a table with  the number of measures implemented in  each of the countries is 

shown.  Important  measures  with  international  impact  are  also  briefly  mentioned.  The 
implementation of measures with international impact is coordinated within existing bilateral 

agreements and follow-up procedures.  

There  is  no  information  regarding  timing  of  the  implementation  of  measures  within  the 
iFRMP74. 

The  iFRMP  states  that  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  measures  will  be  based  on  the 
European Commission’s reporting requirements, but no further details are given75. 

1.5.8  Consideration of climate change in the iFRMP for the Odra 

The  chapter  on  the  PFRA  has  a  specific  sub-section  on  how  climate  change  was  taken  into 
account in the assessment for each Member State. It focuses on what regional scenarios have 

been developed in each Member State and shows that no common approach was used so far.  

There  is  no  information  regarding  whether  climate  change  was  considered  in  the  setting  of 

objectives or in the selection of measures. 

1.5.9  Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Odra RB 

In the consultation and publication of the iFRMP for the Odra RB, a good practice example is 
that a summary of the results of the PFRA for the RB was made available to the public. 

74  The  ICPO  subsequently  informed  that  parties  to  the  Agreement  on  the  International  Commission  for  the 
Protection  of  the  Oder  against  Pollution  set  specific  deadlines  for  the  implementation  of  projects  in  their 
national Plans. 

75  Poland  subsequently  informed  that  the  implementation  of  activities  is  documented  by  the  International 

Commission for the Protection of the Odra against Pollution at specific intervals. 

44 

 
 
                                                 
1.5.10  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 

In preparing for the second cycle of the FD, the following recommendations can be made to 
further improve cooperation: 

 

Co-financing of measures 76should be considered to strengthen cross-border cooperation 
but  also  to  ensure  that  the  measures  taken  are  following  an  overarching  concept  to 
reduce the risks. 

  More  specific  information  should  be  provided  on  how  the  principle  of  solidarity  was 

implemented in practice. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Information  on the underlying assumptions/factors and common  criteria  for producing 
the FHRMs in the different Member States should be provided.  

Clear  information  should  be  included  on  any  joint  flood  risk  areas  and  common 
coordinated  measures  defined  for  joint  risk  areas  if  necessary.  In  case  common 

measures  are  defined  in  the  next  iFRMP,  information  should  be  provided  on  joint 
implementation and monitoring and on how these are organised. 

The return periods to assess high and low probability flood risk are not the same77 in the 
Odra RB. Convergence should be envisaged wherever possible as it supports common 
risk assessments. 

Statistics  on  people  potentially  affected  by  the  different  flood  scenarios,  risk  to 
economic activity, risk to environment and risk to cultural heritage should be provided. 

The iFRMP should be more specific on how the joint objectives for the management of 
flood  risk  have  been  agreed  on  and  on  whether  the  same  objectives  also  apply  to  the 
Czech Republic78. 

Climate  change  should  be  considered  in  the  setting  of  objectives  and  prioritisation  of 

measures. 

The  iFRMP  should  be  more  specific  on  joint  principles  for  defining  and  prioritising 
measures and on whether a CBA has been applied. 

1.6  Scheldt (Escaut) River Basin 

1.6.1  Contextual information  

The  Scheldt  River  Basin  (RB)  is  shared  by  Belgium,  the  Netherlands  and  France.  It  is 
considered a Category 1 RB, as an international river basin commission has been set up – The 

76 The ICPO noted that co-financing is not required by the FD. 
77  The  ICPO  noted  that  using  the  same  probabilities  is  not  required  by  the  FD  for  high  and  low  probability 

floods. 

78 The Czech Republic subsequently informed that the same objectives as in Poland and Germany apply. 

45 

 
 
                                                 
International Scheldt Commission79 (ISC) – to enable cooperation between the three Member 
States and an iFRMP exists.  

1.6.2  Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB 

The  Scheldt  RB  is  coordinated  through  the  International  Scheldt  Commission,  which  has 
produced  an  iFRMP  together  with  Belgium  (Flanders,  Wallonia  and  Brussels),  the 

Netherlands  and  France.  Within  the  river  commission,  the  common  working  group  PA7b 
works specifically on floods, hydrology and low flows. 

The iFRMP does not provide information on resource allocation for joint cooperation (other 
than  for  the  functioning  of  the  ISC),  but  it  does  outline  the  extensive  work  and  meetings 
carried out over the years between the Member States.80 

The  iFRMP  states  that  the  requirements  of  the  WFD  have  been  considered  by  all  riparian 

countries. The iFRMP has identified whether selected measures have beneficial, negative or 
no impact on the implementation of the WFD. The iFRMP however states that measures were 

expressed  at  a  very  abstract  level  and  recommends  carrying  out  a  more  specific  assessment 
based on the specific measures planned at local level in the transboundary catchments.  

The iFRMP outlines the specific steps where mutual information or coordination between the 
Scheldt  countries  and  regions  is  required  when  implementing  the  FD  (i.e.  exchange  of 

relevant information during flood risk assessment; coordination of the identification of areas 
with  a  high  risk  of  flooding;  exchange  of  information  prior  to  the  production  of  flood  risk 

maps;  coordination  during  drafting  of  FRMPs).  Furthermore,  the  iFRMP  presents  a  list  of 
relevant types of measures for the Scheldt and their potential transboundary effects81 and goes 
on  to  say  that  for  measures  which  impact  another  country  or  region,  the  ISC  assumes  a 
coordinating  role.  There  is  no  information  on  further  coordination  during  the  selection  or 

implementation of measures. 

1.6.3  Consultation and publication of the Scheldt iFRMP 

The iFRMP does not specify any joint/transboundary communication strategy or activities. It 
notes that the public was not informed on an international level. Instead, it refers to Articles 9 

and 10, which stipulate that it is the responsibility of the national and regional authorities to 
inform  the public on the relevant  national  or regional plan, as  well as on the content of the 

79 www.isc-cie.org/  
80 France subsequently referred to the application of coordination section (4) art.7 in terms of the ISC’s tasks (cf. 

Ghent treaty, international Scheldt treaty, 3/12/2002). 

81 Table 5, p 35-38 of the FRMP. 

46 

 
 
                                                 
overarching,  international  part.  Details  of  the  national  consultations  are  presented  in  the 
iFRMP82. 

1.6.4  Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the iFRMP of the Scheldt 

In  the  reporting  of  the  three  Member  States  there  is  no  explicit  statement  on  whether  the 

PFRA has been coordinated on an international level. However, the iFRMP specifies that an 
exchange of relevant information for the elaboration of the PFRA is obligatory. Furthermore, 

the  information  reported  indicates  that  the  PFRAs  are  based  on  national  approaches. 
However, it is stated that Member States have exchanged information through the ISC during 

the preparation of the PFRA: Project group PA7B "Floods" managed the iterative process of 
information  exchange  and  coordination  on  the  PFRA.  The  iFRMP  includes  a  description  of 

the  commonalities  and  differences  between  member  states  PFRA  approaches,  in  particular 
regarding  whether  they  produced  PFRAs  according  to  Article  4  (the  approach  followed  by 

France) or whether they made use of Article 13 and applied transitional measures for the first 
cycle  of  the  FD  (as  was  done  by  Brussels,  Flanders  and  Wallonia  in  Belgium,  and  the 

Netherlands). A synthesis of the outcome as a map is provided in the annexes. 

The  sources  of  flooding  that  were  considered  in  the  PFRA  depend  on  the  location  of  the 

regions.  The  Netherlands,  France  and  the  Flemish  region  of  Belgium  have  considered  sea 
water flooding and river flooding. France has also discussed surface run-off and groundwater 

flooding in an informative section, but no run-off risk was calculated for these. In the Belgium 
region  of  Brussels  river  flooding,  groundwater  flooding,  surface  run-off,  and  pluvial  flood 
risks have been analysed, while in the region of Wallonia river flooding and surface run-off 

were taken into account. 

1.6.5  Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in the iFRMP of the Scheldt 

The  Member  States  did  not  use  the  same  probabilities  of  flooding  for  developing  the  flood 
hazard  maps.  The  iFRMP  provides  a  table  showing  the  different  probabilities  considered  in 

each  Member  State.  Return  periods  between  100  and  10  000  years  were  used  for  low 
probability  flooding,  return  periods  between  25  and  300  years  for  medium  probability 

flooding and return periods between 10 and 30 years for high probability flooding.  

A  common  map,  showing  APSFRs,  was  developed  for  the  overall  Scheldt  RB,  but  no 

statistics on people potentially affected, risk to economic activity, risk to environment and risk 
to  cultural  heritage  were  made  available  in  the  iFRMP.  However,  these  are  provided  in  the 

national FRMPs. 

82 Annex 2 of the iFRMP. 

47 

 
 
                                                 
A table is  provided in  the annexes showing that the  risk assessment is  coherent  between all 

Member States regarding human health, environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. 
Some  differences  between  Member  States  exist  however:  Flanders  for  example  does  not 

report any wastewater treatment plants but is also the only one presenting information on bus 
routes. Wallonia shows where phone booths and cabinets for electrical equipment are located, 

and Brussels shows open-air car parks. 

1.6.6  Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk 

The objectives set in the iFRMP were based on a comparison between the objectives set in the 
national  FRMPs  and  are  shared  objectives.  They  focus  on:  1)  strengthening  transboundary 

cooperation  for  the  planning  and  monitoring  of  measures  with  a  transboundary  impact;  2) 
improving  information  sharing  on  floods  and  flood  warning  and  3)  improving  knowledge 

exchange  to  support  decisions.  The  iFRMP  notes  also  that  all  Member  States  and  regions 
mainly aim to reduce the number of fatalities and economic damage, but also have objectives 

for the protection of habitats. 

The iFRMP highlights that climate change should be taken into account in the future. So far, 

the Netherlands and Flanders have taken climate change into account nationally when setting 
flood risk management objectives. 

1.6.7  Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 

The  iFRMP  does  not  state  that  common  principles  for  defining  measures  were  adopted.  A 

categorisation  of  measures  (protection,  prevention,  preparedness  and  recovery)  is  presented, 
but  it  is  not  clear  whether  this  classification  was  used  in  the  planning  of  individual 

regions/Member  States.  The  iFRMP  also  highlights  which  criteria  are  relevant  for  multi-
lateral discussions. France, Brussels/Belgium and Wallonia/Belgium were still in the process 

of  preparing  their  programme  of  measures  (PoM)  when  the  iFRMP  was  prepared,  which  is 
why  the  relevant  chapter  of  the  iFRMP  ought  to  be  updated  once  the  national  PoMs  are 

finished  and  available.  Nationally,  the  Netherlands  and  Flanders/Belgium  mainly  use  cost-
benefit analysis and a maximum reduction of loss of lives to prioritise measures83. 

There is no explanation in the iFRMP on how any measures with a transboundary effect were 
prioritised  or  whether  a  cost-benefit  analysis  was  used84.  There  is  no  information  regarding 
timing of the implementation of measures within the iFRMP or a joint monitoring. 

The main common and coordinated measures85 are: 

83  Wallonia/BE  informed  subsequently  that  it  used  a  multi  criteria  approach  to  prioritise  its  programme  of 

measures. 

84 France subsequently noted that work in this area would be considered for the second cycle of the FD. 

48 

 
 
                                                 
Table 19: 

Joint coordinated measures 

M22  Prevention,  Removal  or  relocation,  Measure  to  remove  receptors  from  flood  prone  areas,  or  to 

relocate receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard 

M23  Prevention,  Reduction,  Measure  to  adapt  receptors  to  reduce  the  adverse  consequences  in  the 

event of a flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc...  

M24  Prevention, Other prevention, Other measure to enhance flood risk prevention (may include, flood 
risk  modelling  and  assessment,  flood  vulnerability  assessment,  maintenance  programmes  or 
policies etc...) 

M31  Protection  Natural  flood  management  /  runoff  and  catchment  management,  Measures  to  reduce 
the  flow  into  natural  or  artificial  drainage  systems,  such  as  overland  flow  interceptors  and  /  or 
storage,  enhancement  of  infiltration,  etc  and  including  in-channel,  floodplain  works  and  the 
reforestation of banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water 

M32  Protection,  Water  flow  regulation,  Measures  involving  physical  interventions  to  regulate  flows, 
such as the construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other 
on-line  storage  areas  or  development  of  existing  flow  regulation  rules),  and  which  have  a 
significant impact on the hydrological regime 

M33  Protection, Channel, Coastal and Floodplain Works, Measures involving physical interventions in 
freshwater  channels,  mountain  streams,  estuaries,  coastal  waters  and  flood-prone  areas  of  land, 
such  as  the  construction,  modification  or  removal  of  structures  or  the  alteration  of  channels, 
sediment dynamics management, dykes, etc.  

M34  Protection,  Surface  Water  Management,  Measures  involving  physical  interventions  to  reduce 
surface water flooding, typically, but not exclusively, in an urban environment, such as enhancing 
artificial drainage capacities or though sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) 

M35  Protection,  Other  Protection,  Other  measure  to  enhance  protection  against  flooding,  which  may 

include flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies 

M41  Preparedness,  Flood  Forecasting  and  Warning,  Measure  to  establish  or  enhance  a  flood 

forecasting or warning system 

M61  Other: Preparedness: implementation or improvement of crisis management scheme and reduction 

of catastrophic hazards (e.g. accidental pollution) 

1.6.8  Consideration of climate change in the Scheldt iFRMP 

Climate change was not considered in the drafting of the iFRMP for setting of joint objectives 
or in the planning of joint measures86. However, the iFRMP mentions that climate change is 
an important issue to consider and highlights that climate change should be taken into account 
in the future. 

Information in WISE reported by Belgium provides a synthesis on knowledge of past impacts 
of  climate  change  and  future  prognostics.  It  also  highlights  that  a  working  group  in  the 

international  river  commission  is  evaluating  the  quantitative  impacts  of  climate  change  on 
water resources and has proposed a series of actions to improve knowledge and coordination 

(in particular how to develop homogenous approaches between riparian Member States). The 
information provided by France highlights that a 60cm increase in sea level was considered in 

85 Numbering according to ‘A User Guide to the Floods Reporting Shemas’ (Technical support in relation to the 

implementation of the FD) see: 

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/Floods/Floods_603_2016/resources/User%20Guide%20to%20the%20Floods%2

0schema%20v6.0.pdf  

86  France  subsequently  noted  that  the  FD  does  not  make  it  obligatory  for  Member  States  to  discuss  climate 

change in the first FRMP. 

49 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
the  flood  risk  assessment  following  French  guidance.  It  notes  the  need  for  further 

hydrological  studies.  The  information  provided  by  the  Netherlands  describes  that  the  flood 
protection  scheme  in  the  Netherlands  has  a  lifespan  of  up  to  100  years  and  include  in  their 

design  considerations  of  the  expected  impacts  of  climate  change.  It  is  stressed  that  climate 
change  is  increasingly  taken  into  account  in  Dutch  flood  management  policy  through 

modification of measures taken, strategic planning and improved modelling. The information 
provided  for  Flanders  indicates  that  the  impact  of  climate  change  on  the  flood  risk  was 

calculated  for  both  an  average  climate  projection  and  a  high  climate  projection.  The  CBA 
took into account the average climate projection for all actions. The selection of measures was 

thus optimized for the average climate projection. 

1.6.9  Good practice examples in the iFRMP of the Scheld RB 

For the implementation of the FD on the international level, the activities of the ISC provide a 
good  practice  examples  for  the  Scheldt  RB:  The  iFRMP  includes  a  description  of  the 

commonalities and differences between the Member States’ PFRAs. 

1.6.10  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 

In preparing for the second cycle of the FD, the following recommendations can be made to 

further improve cooperation: 

 

 

 

Information on whether the principle of solidarity was implemented in the RB should be 

provided. 

The iFRMP should be more specific on how the measures under the WFD and FD are 

coordinated. 

Public  awareness  raising  activities  of  the  iFRMP  at  the  international  level  should  be 

considered,  by  integrating  for  instance  the  international  dimension  into  the  national 
public awareness raising campaigns. 

  More detailed information should be included on how the PFRA was coordinated at the 

international level. 

 

 

The  return  periods  to  assess  flood  risk  are  not  the  same  in  the  Scheldt  RB87. 
Convergence  should  be  envisaged  wherever  possible  as  it  supports  common  risk 
assessments. 

Statistics  on  people  potentially  affected  by  the  different  flood  scenarios,  risk  to 
economic activity, risk to environment and risk to cultural heritage should be provided. 

87  The  delegations  of  the  ISC  (France,  Wallonia,  Flanders,  Brussels,  Federal  Belgium,  the  Netherlands) 
subsequently noted that this is not a requirement of the FD and that the probabilities are exchanged between 
the delegations. 

50 

 
 
                                                 
 

 

 

 

Climate  change  should  be  considerd  in  the  setting  of  objectives  and  prioritisation  of 
measures88. 

Common  principles  for  defining  and  prioritising  measures  should  be  considered  for 
adoption. 

It should be considered to introduce a CBA for the planning and prioritising of measures 
with a transboundary effect. 

The  information  regarding  the  joint  measures  planned  in  the  iFRMPshould  be 

completed:  The  iFRMP  does  not  make  fully  clear  whether  joint  implementation  of 
measures will take place. 

88 The delegations of the ISC noted that according to the FD climate change should be taken into account in the 

second FRMPs. 

51 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2  International units of management – Category 2 Basins 

Category  2  Basins  included:  Duero  (Spain,  Portugal),  Guadiana  (Spain,  Portugal), 
Miño/Minho  (Spain,  Portugal),  Tagus  (Spain,  Portugal)  and  Isonzo/Soca  (Italy, 
Slovenia),  Ems  (Germany,  the  Netherlands),  Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru  (Poland,  Moldova, 
Ukraine), Tornio/Torne River (Sweden, Finland), Teno/Tana (Finland, Norway, Russia) 

2.1  Introduction  

For  the  Category  2  River  Basins  (RB),  i.e.  the  international  RBs  with  formal  international 

agreement and international coordinating body or bodies, but no iFRMP, the outcome of the 
assessment on international cooperation is summarized in one section for all basins due to a) 

the limited amount of information that was available and b) similarities in the outcome of the 
assessment. 

2.1.1  Contextual information  

Four of the Category 2 RBs that were reviewed, the Duero, the Guadiana, the Miño/Minho 
and  the  Tagus  RBs,  are  shared  between  Member  States  Spain  and  Portugal.  They  are  all 
regulated by the ‘Albufeira Convention’89 for the protection and sustainable use of the waters 
of the Spanish-Portuguese watersheds, which was signed in 1998. 

The Isonzo/Soca RB is shared between Member States Italy and Slovenia and is regulated by 
the  “Commissione  Italo-Slovena  per’idroeconomia”  in  Italian  and  “Stalna  slovensko-

italijanska  komisija  za  vodno  gospodarstvo”  in  Slovenian  (hereinafter  called  Permanent 
Bilateral  Commission  for  Water  Management)  established  in  1975.  The  Commission  is  in 

charge of studying all hydrological  problems of common interest  and proposing appropriate 
solutions in this field in order to ensure the improvement of water and electricity supply. 

The  agreement  for  international  cooperation  for  the  Ems  RB  is  not  based  on  a  specific 
agreement  but  is  anchored  in  a  Ministerial  correspondence  between  the  two  countries.  The 

Ministers  responsible  for  protection  of  the  waters  in  the  Ems  RB  in  Germany  and  the 
Netherlands  agreed  to  develop  a  common  international  coordination  document  for  the  Ems 

RB.  

The Torne RB is  shared between Member States Finland and Sweden. Whereas there is  no 

iFRMP,  the  Finnish-Swedish  Transboundary  River  Commission  has  the  objective,  in 
accordance  with  the  Finland-Sweden  Intergovernmental  Agreement  of  2010,  to  inter  alia 

prevent floods and environmental accidents. 

89 http://www.cadc-albufeira.eu/  

52 

 
 
                                                 
The  Teno/Naatamo/Paatsjoki  RB  is  shared  between  Finland,  Norway90  and  Russia.  Some 
flood related activities are carried out. 

By definition, no iFRMPs have been developed for any of the category 2 RBs.  

2.1.2  Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RBs 

The ‘Infrastructure and Flood Security Working Group’ is the expert group of the Albufeira 

Convention  which  is  responsible  for  flood  management  of  the  Spanish/Portuguese 
catchments.  The  competencies  of  the  working  group  are  defined  as  follows:  (i)  identify 

relevant  information  in  flood  and  emergency  situations  and  ensure  mechanisms  for 
information  exchange;  (ii)  promote  the  development  of  joint  studies  on  floods  and 

management  of  water  infrastructures  with  transboundary  effects;  (iii)  ensure  the  elaboration 
and installation of flood and emergency management instruments in the Spanish-Portuguese 

RBs;  (iv)  study  the  framework  of  competences  in  the  area  of  safety  of  hydraulic 
infrastructures  that  may  affect  bilateral  relations,  in  particular  the  role  of  concession 

companies  or  owners  of  dams  or  other  hydraulic  infrastructures  and  (v)  develop  a  work 
program on issues related to dam safety, emergency plans and evaluation of risks of rupture 

and serious accidents with transboundary effects. 

For the Isonzo/Soca RB there is no permanent working group on flood risk management in 

the  ‘Permanent  Bilateral  Commission  for  Water  Management’,  but  the  Commission  meets 
regularly to discuss the level of implementation of the FD and the WFD and all cooperation 

activities between the two countries in this sector. Between 2012 and 2015, the Commission 
met several times (at the official and technical/expert level) to coordinate the preparation of 
all the Flood Directive implementation activities (Italy, Slovenia)91.  

The international  cooperation for the  Ems RB between Germany  and the Netherlands takes 

place  within  the  ‘International  Steering  Group  Ems’  (ISE).  The  group  is  responsible  for 
overall  harmonisation  and  general  progress  of  work  and  the  fundamental  decisions  on 

collaboration  are  taken  by  representatives  of  the  responsible  Ministries.  In  addition,  experts 
from  the  Netherlands,  from  North  Rhine-Westphalia  and  Lower  Saxony  work  within  the 

‘International  Coordination  Group  Ems’  (ICE).  This  group  implements  the  underlying 
decisions of the Steering Group and arrives at specific agreements on joint implementation of 

90 Norway is not implementing the FD, it does implement the WFD. 
91 Italy subsequently informed that in order to establish a permanent working group, sharing methods, techniques 
and  objectives  as  planned,  the  Eastern  Alps  RBD  submitted  in  March  2018  the  strategic  project  proposal 
VISFRIM  (Vipacco and Other Transboundary River  Basins Flood Risk Management) in the  context of the 
INTERREG  ITA-SLO  2014-2020  Program.  The  main  objective  of  the  project  is  to  achieve  an  efficient 
management of the hydraulic risk in transboundary basins (the international Isonzo and Vipacco RBs and the 
interregional  Lemene  RB),  through  the  development  of  methodologies  and  technological  tools  for  the 
implementation of the existing FRMPs and their update by 2021. Recently the project proposal was selected 
among the proposals to be financed and its inception is planned by January 2019. 

53 

 
 
                                                 
the required operational tasks. Working groups are in place according to thematic demand and 

tackle various themes of the FD and technically support the International Coordination Group 
Ems. 

In the Tornio/Torne RB the cooperation is coordinated by the Swedish Civil Contingencies 
Agency,  the  Finnish  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Forest  and  the  Finnish-Swedish 

Transboundary  River  Commission.  The  border  commission  organizes  meetings  between  the 
parties  to  discuss  responsibilities  and  actions  and  has  inter  alia  the  tasks  of:  a)  promoting 

coordination  of  the  work  of  the  authorities  and  municipalities  and  other  parties  that  have 
interests in flood prevention and avoiding environmental accidents at border crossings and b) 

the responsibility to  share information  and hold  meetings to  discuss programs  and plans set 
out in Article 1092. The border commission acts as a chair between the County Administrative 
Board  and  the  Centre  for  Economic  Development,  Transport  and  the  Environment  (ELY 
Center) in the preparation of FRMPs (Finland, Sweden). 

For the Teno/Naatamo/Paatsjoki RB coordination takes place under the Finnish-Norwegian 
Transboundary Water Commission which has been active since 1980 and the Finnish-Russian 

Transboundary Commission which is active since 1964. 

It is not clear if financial resources for joint cooperation have been made available in any of 

the Category 2 RBs. Only for the Duero basin one measure (M24: Elaboración de estudios de 
mejora del conocimiento sobre la gestión del riesgo de inundación – Preparation of studies to 

improve flood  risk management  knowledge)  refers to  the  costs of international  cooperation, 
but no costs are specified. There is also no information on the financing for joint activities and 
projects.93 

It is also not clear whether the solidarity principle has been applied in the five RBs. Spain and 

Portugal refer to the importance of the principle in the FRMPs, but for all except one of the 
RBs no further information is provided on how this principle has been applied94. Only for the 
Tagus RB it is explicitly mentioned that none of the measures taken in Spain increases flood 
risk  in  the  downstream  Portuguese  areas.  In  the  FRMP  for  the  Eastern  Alps  (Italy),  Article 

7(4)  is  not  explicitly  mentioned.  In  the  Tornio/Torne  RB,  the  Tornio  FRMP  (Finland) 
acknowledges  that  FRMPs  needs  to  be  harmonised  and  measures  cannot  have  a  negative 

cross-border impact unless agreed jointly within the international RB. 

92 In accordance with the Finland-Sweden Intergovernmental Agreement of 2010. 
93 Slovenia subsequently informed of the Slovenian-Italian VISFRIM strategic flood risk reduction project in the 
includes  many  common  flood  risk  reduction  activities.  https://www.ita-

Isonzo/Soca  RB  which 
slo.eu/sites/default/files/Graduatorie_strategici_lestivce_strateski_Ita-Slo_05_2018.pdf 

94  Portugal  subsequently  clarified  that  Portugal  and  Spain  have  an  agreement  to  increase  the  information 
exchange during flood events. In the Tagus basin this exchange is already done by connecting databases. This 
automation  will  be  extended  to  the  other  international  basins.  With  this  agreement  it  is  made  possible  to 
manage dam storage capacity existing in the two countries in order to minimize the effects of floods. 

54 

 
 
                                                 
For the Spanish/Portuguese catchments the Portuguese FRMP describes the interaction with 

the RBMP on a very generic level. Interaction addresses a) the overlaps between WFD water 
bodies  and  FD  risk  areas,  and  b)  the  effects  of  FD  measures  on  the  WFD  objectives, 

considering three elements: 1) contribution to WFD objectives, as per the flow reduction (e.g. 
by recovery of riparian  vegetation) and subsequently reduced pollution risks; 2) exemptions 

due to WFD’s Art. 4(6); 3) exemptions due to WFD’s Art. 4(7). In the Tagus FRMP, out of 
33 overlapping areas, in three of them, interference with the WFD’s objectives might be the 

case, but these are not further described, and a generic reference to the RBMP is provided for 
further details.95 

For the Isonzo/Soca RB, information on the coordination is also provided. During a meeting 
of  technical  experts  held  in  Gorizia  in  December  2015,  the  existing  synergies  between  the 

measures of the national FRMPs (Italy, Slovenia) and those of the RBMP were discussed and 
promoted. The inventory of measures in the FRMP of the Eastern Alps (Italy) and of Slovenia 

indicates for each measure whether there can be a synergy, potential conflict or no interaction 
with the RBMP measures and whether the measures are also adopted in the RBMP (win-win 

situation). 

The Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru RBn is shared between Member States Poland and Moldavia and 

Ukraine.  The  Polsh  WISE  report  states 
the 
Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru  RB  and  therefore  no  FRMP  was  prepared.  According  to  the  Polish 

that  no  APSFRs  were 

identified 

in 

Dniester RBMP, the Ukrainian-Polish  Commission has five working  groups: 1) planning of 
transboundary  waters;  2)  protection  of  border  waters  against  pollution;  3)  flood  control 

regulations and drainage; 4) combating extraordinary pollution; and 5) hydrometeorology and 
hydrogeology. 

2.1.3  Coordinated consultation of FRMPs in transboundary RBs 

Since  there  are  no  iFRMPs  for  Category  2  RBs,  there  is  also  no  joint/transboundary 

communication strategy in place for an FRMP in any of the basins. It should be noted though 
for the Iberian peninsula, that the Spanish  draft FRMPs  were  also  produced in  Portuguese 

language and are available on the website of the competent Portuguese authority. In the Finish 
FRMP for the Tornio/Torne RB, the summary of the Plan also exists in Swedish, Mäenkieli 

and in Northern Sami language (for the indigenous Sami people). The FRMP for the Eastern 
Alps (Italy) states that further coordination of public participation activities, exchange of data 

and methodologies in the implementation of the FD is important, however it remains unclear 
how this has been made operational.  

95  It  was  further  clarified  by  Portugal  and  Spain  that  at  its  20th  plenary  meeting,  the  Commission  for  the 
Implementation  and  Development  of  the  Albufeira  Convention  agreed  to  prepare  a  joint  report  on  the 
implementation of the programme of measures for shared bodies of water, including the measures set out in 
the framework of the FD, as  well as the evaluation of their status, according to the mid-term evaluation set 
out in Article 15(3) of the WFD. 

55 

 
 
                                                 
For  the  Garonne-Cantabrico,  the  Garonne-Ebro,  the  Vistula,  the  Pregolya  and  the 

Tornio/Torne RBs there was a public consultation individually for the national FRMPs.  

There has been no joint public consultation or awareness rising of joint activities in most of 

the RBs. For the Minho (Unit of Management ES10) a joint workshop was held in 2015 for 
the consultation and formal procedure of exchanges of FRMPs (between Spain and Portugal) 

and the clarification of  the agendas. Also the FRMPs for the Tornio/Torne River includes a 
table  showing  several  meetings  and  workshops  where  the  flood  risk  management  work  has 

been  presented  and  many  of  these  events  have  been  joint  events.  For  example,  there  was  a 
public consultation of the national  FRMPs where both,  Finland and Sweden were involved. 

During the process, collaboration took place regarding goals, responsibilities, tasks and roles.  

2.1.4  Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in transboundary RBs 

For  all  catchments  in  Category  2  the  conclusions  of  the  PFRA  were  presented  only 
individually for the national shares. 

The  transboundary  risk  areas  for  the  Ems  RB  are  Haren-Rütenbrock-Kanal  and  the  Ems 
Estuary. The document on international coordination states that the methodologies used in the 

two  Member  States  are  different,  but  coordination  and  data  exchange  during  the  risk 
assessment took place and the results are comparable. In the case of the Ems river, Germany 

considered  fluvial  and  coastal  flooding,  while  the  Netherlands  considered  fluvial,  pluvial, 
coastal  flooding  and  artificial  water  bearing  infrastructure.  The  international  coordination 

document for the Ems river provides the conclusion of the PFRA in the form of a map.  

For the Isonzo/Soca RB during a meeting of the Permanent Bilateral Commission for Water 

Management in 2014, FHRMs already prepared and available for the respective parts of the 
Isonzo/Soca RB were presented96. The text of the FRMP (Italy) explains that the measures to 
manage flood risk were subject to coordination rather than the risk assessment itself.  

The coordination of the risk assessment in the Tornio/Torne RB is summarised in Appendix 

6 of the FRMP of Haparanda (Sweden). There is no information on how the coordination was 
performed, but the results of the coordination are provided97.  

Flood risk in Teno/Tana RB has been jointly assessed between Finland and Norway and it is 
very  low  or  even  non-existent  and  no  APSFR  has  been  designated.  The  Finnish-Norwegian 
Transboundary Water Commission has also acknowledged the low flood risk in the area and the 

96  Slovenia  subsequently  informed  that  in  a  meeting  of  the  Permanent  Bilateral  Commission  for  Water 
Management in 2012 information exchange on the PFRA and the harmonisation of APSFR’s in the RB took 
place. http://www.statika.evode.gov.si/fileadmin/vg_komisije/SLO-IT-zasedanje_december%202012.pdf  
97  Finland  subsequently  informed  that  in  addition,  a  joint  report  on  the  PFRA  was  prepared  in  2011  and  the 

coordination is briefly described in the national FRMPs. 

56 

 
 
                                                 
cooperation  is  presently  focusing  on  other  aspects  such  as  implementation  of  the  WFD  and 

fisheries. 

It  is  not  clear  whether  the  risk  assessment  in  the  four  Spanish/Portuguese  RBs  has  been 
coordinated  on  an  international  level  as  no  specific  information  is  provided  in  the  national 

FRMPs (Spain, Portugal). 

For  the  Guadiana  RB  three  joint  risk  areas  have  been  identified  by  Spain:  Two  fluvial 

APSFRs  (ES040_EXT_019  (Guadiana  X)  and  ES040_AND_001  (Guadiana  XI))  and  one 
coastal  APSFR  (ES040_AND_008).  Portugal  has  not  identified  flood  risk  areas  for  the 
Guadiana RB98. There is no information on whether the sources of flooding considered in the 
common flood risk areas are the same.  

2.1.5  Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in transboundary RBs 

The probabilities of flooding used for developing the flood hazard maps are different in the 
national shares of each RB (see the table below, return periods in years).  

Table 20:  

Overview of return periods in “category 2” basins (in years) 

River Basin 
Spanish/Portuguese 
RBs 
Isonzo/Soca 

Ems 

Tornio/Torne 

Teno/Tana 

Member States 
Portugal 
Spain 
Slovenia 
Italy 
Germany 
The Netherlands 
Finland 
Sweden 
Finland 

low probability 
1 000 
500 
500 
300-500 
200-1 000 
500-1 000 
250-1 000 
10 000 
250-1000 

medium probability 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100-300 
100 
100 
100 

high probability 
20 
10 
10 
30 
10-20 
10-30 
2, 5, 10 and 20 
50 
20 

A common risk map only  exists for the  Ems RB, which is  based on the individual  national 
approaches. However, the international coordination document states that the results shown in 

the map are comparable. In the Tornio/Torne RB, initial flood hazards maps were produced 
in  a  joint  project  in  2009-2012,  but  the  final  ones  adopted  at  the  national  level  are 

differentiated because of variations in the chosen flood scenarios/probabilities.  

As mentioned above, in the Isonzo/Soca RB mutual presentations of the FHRMs took place 
in 2014 under the Permanent Bilateral Commission for Water Management99. 

98 It was subsequently clarified by Spain and Portugal that in the 20th plenary meeting of the Commission for the 
Implementation  and  Development  of  the  Albufeira  Convention,  (Oporto,  November  2017),  the  WG  on 
Planning  was  entrusted  with  coordinating  the  preparation  of  the  FRMPs  for  the  2022-2027  period,  in 
particular  the  development  of  common  methodologies  to  identify  critical  areas  of  flood  risk,  especially  in 
shared bodies of water, taking into account the impact of climate change. 

99 Slovenia subsequently provided this internet link: 

57 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.1.6  Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk in transboundary RBs 

For  the  Isonzo/Soca  RB  at  the  meeting  of  the  Permanent  Bilateral  Commission  for  Water 
Management held in Miren (Slovenia) in October 2014, the state of implementation of the FD 

was discussed and the participants noted that both parties had common objectives and decided 
to  coordinate  their  implementation.  However,  no  more  explicit  information  is  provided  on 

these objectives. It is therefore assumed that the objectives referred to are those defined at the 
national level: To reduce the potential negative consequences that floods may have on human 

health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and  economic  activity.  The  impacts  of  climate 
change will be accounted for in the next FRMP (Italy).  

For the Ems RB (Germany, the Netherlands), the different objectives are as follows: (a) avoid 
new, unacceptable risks; (b) reduction of existing risks to an acceptable level; (c) reduction of 

adverse consequences during a flood event and (d) reduction of adverse consequences after a 
flood event. The national objectives are the same, but they are described in much more detail. 

Climate change has not yet been taken into account when setting the joint objectives for the 
basin, but will be in accordance with Article 14(4) in the next cycle. 

For  the  Torne/Tornio  RB,  objectives  for  flood  risk  management  were  compared  for  the 
Finnish and Swedish parts and are mostly the same. These include for instance informing the 

general public about flood risk and how one can prepare for a flood with a return period of 
50-100  years.  In  the  Tornio  FRMP  (Finland)  also  Haparanda’s  (Sweden)  objectives  are 

presented  and  similarities  and  differences  are  shown  in  a  table.  No  joint  objectives  for  the 
management  of  flood  risk  at  the  international  level  have  been  established  in  the  four 

Spanish/Portuguese RBs. 

There 

is  no 

information  available 

for 

the  Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru  RB  and 

the 

Teno/Naatamo/Paatsjoki RB. 

2.1.7  Planning and implementation of measures in transboundary RBs 

Common and coordinated measures100 were only listed for the Ems RB: 

Table 21: 

Joint coordinated measures 

M41  Preparedness,  Flood  Forecasting  and  Warning,  Measure  to  establish  or  enhance  a  flood 

forecasting or warning system 

M42  Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish 

or enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning 

M61  Other  

http://www.statika.evode.gov.si/fileadmin/vg_komisije/SLO-IT-zasedanje_oktober%202014.pdf  
100 Numbering according to ‘A User Guide to the Floods Reporting Shemas’ (Technical support in relation to the 

implementation of the FD) see: 

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/Floods/Floods_603_2016/resources/User%20Guide%20to%20the%20Floods%2

0schema%20v6.0.pdf  

58 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Chapter  5.2  of  the  coordination  document  of  the  Ems  lists  the  following  set  of  common 

measures:  a)  dike  watching  (dyke  controls);  b)  information  exchange  and  c)  exchange  on 
crises management and joint trainings.  

In the Ems  RB, no agreed timeframe  for implementing the measures  is provided. However, 
according to the coordination document between Germany and the Netherlands it seems that 

the  joint  measures  have  already  been  implemented.  No  information  is  provided  on  whether 
the implementation of these measures has been or will be monitored in a joint way.  

For  the  Isonzo/Soca  RB  the  key  joint  principle  for  defining  and  prioritising  measures  is  to 
coordinate  the  methodology  for  the  evaluation  of  their  costs  and  benefits,  but  no  further 

information is provided in the documents assessed. 

For the Isonzo/Soca RB the main common and coordinated measures are: 

Table 22: 

Joint coordinated measures 

M31  Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the 
flow into natural or artificial drainage systems, such as overland flow interceptors and / or storage, 
enhancement of infiltration, etc  and including in-channel, floodplain  works and the reforestation 
of banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water 

M41  Preparedness,  Flood  Forecasting  and  Warning,  Measure  to  establish  or  enhance  a  flood 

forecasting or warning system 

M42  Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish 

or enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning 

M43  Preparedness,  Public  Awareness  and  Preparedness,  Measure  to  establish  or  enhance  the  public 

awareness or preparedness for flood events 

During the meeting of technical experts held in Gorizia in December 2015 for the Isonzo/Soca 

RB,  the  existing  synergies  between  the  measures  of  the  FD  and  those  of  the  WFD  were 
discussed and promoted. The inventory of measures available in Annex V to the FRMP of the 

Eastern  Alps  (Italy)  indicates  for  each  measure  whether  there  can  be  a  synergy  with  the 
WFD’s measures and whether the measure is also adopted in the RBMP (win-win situation). 

The inventory of measures in the Slovenian FRMP indicates for each measure whether there 
can be a synergy, potential conflict or no interaction with the RBMP measures. Furthermore, 
the FRMP states that the transboundary measures will be implemented in two phases (the first 

phase is 2016-18 and the second phase 2019-21). The group of technical experts appointed by 
the  Italian-Slovenian  Commission  met  four  times  in  2016  to  discuss  the  progress  in  the 

implementation of the common measures. Each meeting was devoted to the monitoring of a 
specific measure among the shared ones. 

For  the  Tornio/Torne  RB,  measures  are  discussed  jointly,  and  the  corresponding  measures 
are  shown  in  the  Finish  FRMP,  for  example,  using  tables  and  describing  possible 
59 

 
 
 
transboundary impact. Some measures are reported by Sweden, however, it is not clear which 
measures were coordinated on an international level.101 

Based  on  the  assessment  of  the  national  FRMPs  there  are  no  common  and  coordinated 

measures  and  no  information  was  found  in  the  national  FRMPs  on  whether  there  are  joint 
principles for defining or prioritising measures102 for the four Spanish/Portuguese RBs.103 

There is  no information  available for the  Dniester RB104 and the Teno/Naatamo/Paatsjoki 
RB. 

2.1.8  Consideration of climate change in transboundary RBs 

For the  Spanish/Portuguese catchments  there is no information  if climate change has been 

considered as an international coordination issue. Spain refers to previous studies existing on 
water availability reduction (however not much linked to flood risk), and explains that further 

studies  will  be  undertaken,  while  Portugal  refers  to  the  fact  that  such  studies  will  be 
undertaken  by  2018  only.  There  is  no  information  regarding  whether  climate  change  was 

considered in the setting of objectives or in the selection of measures.  

For the Isonzo/Soca RB, the FRMP for Eastern Alps (Italy) states that, in line with Article 14 

of the FD, the impact of climate change on the occurrence of floods and their effect will be 
evaluated  when  reviewing  the  Plan.  The  review  will  take  into  consideration  the  Italian 

National Climate Change Strategy which has been adopted on 16 June 2015. 

In  the  Ems  RB  (Germany,  the  Netherlands),  climate  change  is  not  addressed  in  the 

coordination document, but in the national FRMPs information is provided. 

In  the  Tornio/Torne  RB,  it  is  not  clear  if  climate  change  was  considered  as  an  issue  for 
bilateral coordination.105 

101  Finland  and  Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  all  the  measures  stated  in  both  FRMPs  were  discussed  in 
several  joint  Finnish-Swedish  meetings  between  the  Transboundary  River  Commission,  regional  and 
municipal authorities. 

102 Spain subsequently informed that Article 18 of the Albufeira Convention sets out actions to be taken if there 
are  floods.  In  section  4  of  the  Convention,  both  countries  commit  to  sharing  in  real  time,  during  an 
emergency  flooding  situation,  the  information  they  have  about  precipitation,  flows,  levels,  reservoir 
situations  and  operating  conditions.  The  aim  of  this  is  to  support  the  adoption  of  the  most  appropriate 
management  strategies  and  the  coordination  of  such  strategies.  Also,  both  countries  must  coordinate  their 
individual and joint actions so as to prevent, eliminate, mitigate and control the effects of flooding. 

103 Portugal subsequently informed that although not mentioned in the Plans, a common project was proposed in 
2016  to  INTERREG  (POCTEP),  called  Prevention  of  Flood  and  Drought  Risks  in  the  Minho-Lima 
International  Basin,  approved  in  2017  with  an  amount  of  EUR  2.3  M.  The  main  objective  is  to  develop 
activities to mitigate the effects of floods and drought, increasing knowledge on extreme events throughout 
the  international  basin  in  the  context  of  climate  change,  to  better  prevent,  prepare,  manage  and  promote 
environmental and human protection. 

104 Poland subsequently clarified that FRMPs were prepared for areas at risk of flooding, identified in the PFRA 
and detailed in the FHRMs. Due to the fact that no APSFRs were identified in the Dniester River Basin, no 
FHRMs were prepared and also there was no need to prepare FRMPs. 

60 

 
 
                                                 
There is  no information  available for the  Dniester RB106 and the Teno/Naatamo/Paatsjoki 
RB. 

2.1.9  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 

In preparing for the second cycle of the FD, the following recommendations can be made to 
further improve cooperation: 

 

Drafting  an  iFRMP  for  the  international  UoM/RBD  should  be  considered.  This  will 

serve  as  a  tool  to  guide  cooperation  on  all  aspects:  protection,  prevention  and 
preparedness. Defining objectives for the management of flood risk at the transboundary 
level could be a first step in this direction. 

 

Co-financing  of  measures  with  a  transboundary  effect  should  be  considered  to 

strengthen  cross-border  cooperation  but  also  to  ensure  that  the  measures  taken  are 
following an overarching concept to reduce the risks. 

  More  specific  information  should  be  provided  in  the  national  FRMPs  on  how  the 

principle of solidarity was implemented in practice. 

 

Public  awareness  raising  activities  of  the  national  FRMPs  at  an  international  level 
should  be  increased,  thereby  promoting  appreciation  of  RB  wide  and  transboundary 

water management. 

 

The  probabilities  to  assess  flood  risk  for  high  and  low  probability  floods  are  not  the 

same. A converge of probabilities used could be envisaged as it supports common risk 

assessments. Overall conclusions of the flood risk assessment for the entire RB should 
be presented in the national FRMPs. 

 

Risk maps and statistics on people potentially affected by the different flood scenarios, 
risk to  economic  activity, risk to  environment or  risk to  cultural  heritage  covering the 

entire RB should be provided. This should aid regional risk management cooperation. 

 

Climate change should be considered in the setting of objectives and in the prioritisation 

of measures. 

105 Finland and Sweden subsequently informed that climate change was included as a topic in joint projects at the 

PFRA and FHRM phases. These activities will be strengthen in the second cycle. 

106 See footnote above with clarification from Poland.  

61 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Spanish/Portuguese RBs: 

 

 

 

 

 

Information on coordination with the WFD at the international level should be provided.  

Information on the coordination of the risk assessment at a transboundary level should 

be provided. 

Information  should  be  provided  if  transboundary  flood  risk  areas  for  the  Duero,  the 

Miño/Minho and the Tagus RBs exists and if yes, how they have been designated. 

Joint principles for defining and prioritising measures at an international level should be 

specified. 

Common measures should be defined and coordinated at an international level. 

Isonzo/Soca RB: 

 

Information  on  the  existence  of  joint  flood  risk  areas  starting  from  the  PFRA  phase 
should be provided. 

62 

 
 
 
 
3  International units of management – Category 3 Basins 

Category  3  Basins  include:  Garonne-Eastern  Cantabrian  (Spain,  France),  Garonne-
Ebro (Spain, France), Vistula (Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Belarus, Ukraine), Pregolya 
(Lithuania,  Poland,  Russia),  Vidaa/Wiedau  (Denmark,  Germany)  Krusaa/Krusau 
(Denmark, Germany) 

3.1.1  Introduction  

Category  3  RB  are  basins  which  are  international  RB  or  international  UoMs  with  formal 

international agreements, but no iFRMP and no international coordinating body. 

The  outcome  of  the  assessments  on  international  cooperation  for  all  Category  3  RBs  is 

summarized in one section due to a) the limited amount of information that was available and 
b) similarities in the findings of the assessment. 

3.1.2  Contextual information 

For  the  Garonne  RB  in  France  and  the  Eastern  Cantabrian  and  Ebro  RBs  in  Spain,  a 

number  of  agreements  are  in  place  that  relate  to  international  cooperation,  but  very  few 
information on the activities undergone under these agreements is provided. For the three RBs 

reference  is  made  to  the  Agreement  of  Toulouse  that  was  established  between  Spain  and 
France  in  February  2006  in  order  to  better  coordinate  measures  taken  in  the  watersheds 

located in both countries (especially measures of the WFD). For the linked Garonne and Ebro 
RBs  it  is  stated  that  under  this  convention  it  was  agreed  to  make  independent  plans  and  to 

hold  technical  meetings  for  coordination,  but  no  further  details  on  these  meetings  are 
provided. For the linked Garonne and Eastern Cantabrian basins, the Joint Commission of the 
Lanós Lake and the Upper Garonne Joint Commission are also in place, but no activities are 

reported.  

The  Vistula  RB  is  a  Category  3  RB  that  is  shared  between  EU  Member  States  Lithuania, 

Poland and Slovakia and non-EU countries Belarus and Ukraine. International cooperation is 
based  on  a  large  number  of  international  conventions  and  intergovernmental  agreements, 

including:  the  Convention  on  the  Protection  and  Use  of  Transboundary  Watercourses  and 
International  Lakes  (17  February  2000),  the  agreement  between  Poland  and  Slovakia  on 

Water Management in Border Countries (14 May 1997), the agreement between Poland and 
the  Ukraine  on  cooperation  in  the  field  of  water  management  in  border  waters  (10  October 

1996),  the  agreement  between  Poland  and  Belarus  on  cooperation  in  the  field  of 
environmental protection (20 May 1992) and the agreement between Poland and Lithuania on 

cooperation  in  the  field  of  border  water  use  and  protection  (07  June  2005).  International 
cooperation  in  the  area  of  particular  water  regions  is  carried  out  under  statutory  tasks  and 

concentrates  on  cooperation  in  border  waters  (Slovakia,  Ukraine,  Lithuania,  Belarus)  and 

63 

 
 
other  cooperation  in  the  field  of  water  management.  This  cooperation  is  also  based  on  the 

arrangements  for  mutual  cooperation  in  the  implementation  of  EU  water  policy.  For  the 
Vistula  RB,  information  exchange  with  Slovakia  takes  place  within  the  framework  of  the 

the  Polish-Ukrainian  Border  Water 
Polish-Slovak  Border  Water  Commission  and 
Commission. At present negotiations are underway on a draft agreement between Poland and 

Belarus on cooperation in the field of water management for border waters. 

The  Pregolya  RB  is  shared  between  Member  States  Lithuania  and  Poland,  and  Russia. 

International cooperation is coordinated by the National Water Management Board in Poland 
and based on two formal international agreements: one with Lithuania (7 June 2005) and one 

with Russia (first signed 17 July 1964 under the USSR and automatically renewed every five 
years). 

The  transboundary  rivers  shared  by  Denmark  and  Germany  are  the  Vidaa/Wiedau  and  the 
Krusaa/Krusau  rivers.  Vidaa-Krusaa  is  part  of  the  Eider  and  the  Schlei/Trave  RB  in 

Germany,  and  makes  up  the  whole  of  the  international  RB  in  Denmark  (Internationalt 
Vanddistrikt  DK4).  The  Eider  and  Schlei/Trave  RB  in  Germany  and  the  Internationalt 

Vanddistrikt DK4 have originally been reported as international RBs according to Article 3 of 
the  WFD,  but  since  19  %  of  the  Vidaa/Wiedau  and  25  %  of  the  Krusaa/Krusau  RBs  are 

located  in  Germany,  these  minority  shares  of  the  basins  are  combined  with  larger  RBs  and 
both treated in a combined manner by Germany. but since only very small shares of the basins 

are located in Denmark, they are both treated as national RBs by Germany. This is based on 
an agreement with Denmark and has been reported as such for both the WFD and the FD. The 
implementation of the FD has been coordinated between Germany and Denmark107. 

3.1.3  Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RBs 

For  none  of  the  Category  3  RBs  an  international  coordinating  body  exists.  Hence, 
coordination is performed by the different bodies (e.g. working groups) based on international 

agreements, but very few information on who is performing which task is available. For the 
two  French-Spanish  catchments  no  working  groups  are  in  place.  The  Spanish  FRMP 

(ES091) for the Garonne-Ebro refers to technical meetings, but no further details are given. 
For  the  Garonne-Eastern  Cantabrian  the  FRMP  (ES017)  includes  a  specific  annex  on 

international  cooperation,  which  does  not  refer  to  any  working  group,  but  details  all  issues 
regarding this topic. In the Vidaa/Wiedau and the Krusaa/Krusau RBs work is coordinated 

107  Germany  subsequently  informed  that  a  joint  declaration  from  2005  exists.  The  agreement  originally  was 
limited  to  coordinating  the  implementation  of  the  WFD,  but  it  was  updated  in  2010  via  an  exchange  of 
ministerial letters to include also coordination under the FD. 

64 

 
 
                                                 
between relevant authorities108. For the Vistula several working groups have been established. 
For the Pregolya RB no information on any working groups was available.  

It is not clear if financial resources for joint cooperation have been made available in any of 

the “Category 3” basins. There is also no information on the financing for joint activities and 
projects. Only for the Vistula RB it is explicitly stated that there are no investment activities 

that  could  have  cross-border  effects.  Countries  in  the  Vistula  RB  (also  outside  the  EU)  are 
being kept informed about any activities/projects carried out or planned in the RB during the 

bilateral commission meetings. 

All  FRMPs,  refer  to  the  principle  of  solidarity,  i.e.  Member  States  should  avoid  taking 

measures  which  due  to  their  extent  and  their  effect  considerably  increase  the  flood  risk  in 
other countries upstream or downstream in the same river catchment or sub-catchment as long 

as these measures are not  coordinated between the Member State concerned and a common 
solution has been found. However, it remains unclear how this is handled in practice. 

No  information  was  provided  on  how  the  FRMPs  were  coordinated  with  the  RBMPs  for 
Category 3 RBs on the international level, except for the Garonne-Eastern Cantabrian RB 

where it is mentioned in the Spanish FRMP that the French authorities have been invited by 
Spain  to  a  workshop  on  floods  in  the  frame  of  the  second  RBMP  drafting.  However, 

coordination between FRMPs and RBMPs has taken place in many cases at the national level.  

3.1.4  Coordinated consultation of FRMPs in transboundary RBs 

For  the  Garonne-Eastern  Cantabrian,  the  Garonne-Ebro,  the  Vistula,  the  Pregolya  and 
Vidaa/Wiedau and the Krusaa/Krusau no joint/transboundary communication strategy has 

been  developed.  In  the  Vistula  and  Pregolya  RBs  consultation  was  mainly  done  via  the 
established working groups.  

3.1.5  Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in transboundary RBs 

For  the  Vidaa/Wiedau  and  the  Krusaa/Krusau  it  is  stated  that  the PFRA  was  coordinated 
among Denmark and Germany109, but no details are provided.  

Transboundary risk areas have been identified in the Garonne-Eastern Cantabrian RB but 

the information provided in the national FRMPs (Spain, France) is not matching. According 
to  the  Spanish  FRMP  (ES017)  there  are  two  joint  flood  risk  areas  (Irún-Hondarribia  and 

regatas Ugarana y Lapitxuri), while the French FRMP (FRF) identifies one transboundary risk 

108  Denmark  subsequently  informed  that  this  is  accomplished  by  means  of  annual  meetings  between  senior 
representatives  from  Germany  and  Denmark  where  information  on  the  implementation  of  the  FD  in  the 
Danish-German border is exchanged. 

109  Denmark  subsequently  informed  that  this  is  accomplished  by  means  of  annual  meetings  between  senior 

representatives from Germany and Denmark. 

65 

 
 
                                                 
area, the Basque Coastline. The sources of flooding that are considered in these transboundary 

flood  risk  areas  are  not  entirely  overlapping  for  the  two  Member  States.  In  the  Garonne-
Eastern Cantabrian RB the Spanish FRMP (ES017) mentions that fluvial and marine flooding 

were considered, while in the French FRMP (FRF) it is stated that overflows of watercourses, 
marine submersions, urban or agricultural runoff, rising groundwater, rising mountain torrents 

and ruptures or failures of hydraulic structures are taken into account. 

3.1.6  Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in transboundary RBs 

The probabilities of flooding used for developing the flood hazard maps of the four Category 
3 RBs are different in the national shares of each RB (see table below). 

Table 23: 

Overview of return periods in “category 3” RBs (in years) 

RB 

Garonne-Ebro 

Garonne-Eastern 
Cantabrian 
Vistula 

Pregolya 

Schlei/Trave 

Eider 

Member States 
Spain 
France 
Spain 
France 
Poland 
Slovakia 
Lithuania 
Poland 
Lithuania 
Germany and 
Denmark 
Germany and 
Denmark 

low probability 
500 
1 000s 
500 
1 000 
0.2% 
1 000 
0.1% 
0.2% 
no info 
200 

medium probability 
100 
100-300 
100 
100-300 
1% 
100 
1% 
1%  
no info 
100 

high probability 
10 
10-30 
10 
10-30 
10% 
5, 10 and 50 years 
10% 
10% 
no info 
10 

200 

100 

10 

3.1.7  Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk in transboundary RBs 

For  none  of  the  Category  3  RBs,  joint  objectives  for  the  management  of  flood  risk  at  the 
international level have been established.  

For the Garonne-Ebro and the Garonne Eastern Cantabrian RBs the French submission to 
WISE states that ‘an identification of cross-border issues is to be carried out, which will be 

followed by the establishment of useful contacts and cooperation’ .  

For the Vidaa/Wiedau and the Krusaa/Krusau objectives have been set. They are: a) avoid 

new, unacceptable, risks; b) reduction of existing risks to an acceptable level; c) reduction of 
adverse consequences during a flood event and (d) reduction of adverse consequences after a 

flood event. 

3.1.8  Planning and implementation of measures with transboundary effect 

For  none  of  the  six  Category  3  Basins  joint  principles  for  defining  or  prioritising  measures 
have been defined and no information on the use of a cost-benefit analysis is provided. 

66 

 
 
For the Vistula and Pregolya RBs there are some measures reported by Poland, but none are 

international, the majority are national, some regional (within Poland). For the Vidaa/Wiedau 
and the Krusaa/Krusau RBs it is stated that measures are coordinated, but further details are 

not provided. 

No  information  is  provided  for  any  of  the  Category  3  Basins  regarding  a  coordination  of 
measures with the WFD’s requirements on international level110. 

3.1.9  Consideration of climate change in transboundary RBs 

There  is  no  information  regarding  whether  climate  change  was  considered  in  the  setting  of 
objectives  or  in  the  selection  of  measures  at  international  level.  Climate  change  has  been 

considered in parts of five of the international Category 3 RBs within the national contexts. 

3.1.10  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles  

For  all  Category  3  RBs  the  following  recommendations  can  be  made  to  further  improve 
cooperation: 

 

Closer links should be developed in order to move progressively towards a Category 1 
RB, if justified by the circumstances. This would mean to develop a formal agreement/s 

with an international coordinating body and eventually an international FRMP. 

110  Poland  subsequently  clarified  that  for  the  Vistula  and  Pregolya  river  basin,  no  investment  measures  are 
planned in the first cycle of implementation of the FD that could have a cross-border impact. Therefore, there 
was no need for coordination of measures with the WFD’s requirements at the international level. 

67 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4  International units of management – Category 4 Basins 

Category  4  Basins  include:  Po  (Italy,  France,  Switzerland),  Eastern  Alps/Adige  (Italy, 
(Estonia,  Russia), 
Switzerland),  Gauja/Koiva 
Nemunas/Nieman/Neman/Nyoman  (Lithuania,  Poland,  Russia,  Belarus),  Kemijoki111 
(Finland, Norway, Russia),  

(Estonia,  Latvia),  East  Estonia 

4.1.1  Introduction  

Category  4  RB  are  international  RBs  or  international  UoMs  with  no  formal  international 

agreement,  no  international  coordinating  body  and  no  iFRMP.  The  outcome  of  the 
assessments  on international  cooperation for basins  is  summarized in  one section due to  (a) 

the very limited amount of information that was available and (b) similarities in the findings 
of the assessment. 

4.1.2  Contextual information  

The Po RB is shared between the Italy and France and the Non-EU Switzerland. Coordination 

activities have only been carried out for the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the 
Italian  FRMP:  Institutional  representatives  of  France  and  Switzerland  were  consulted  with 

regards to the cross-border portions of the Po RB. No further coordination activities have been 
put in place for the preparation of the Italian FRMP.  

The  Eastern  Alps/Adige  RB  is  shared  between  the  Italy  and  Non-EU  Switzerland.  The 
Eastern  Alps  FRMP  (Italy)  explains  that,  for  the  international  RB  district  Adige,  due  to  the 

limited  territorial  extent  (only  1.09%  of  its  surface  is  in  Switzerland)  and  the  absence  of 
particular  issues  related  to  the  management  of  flood  risks,  no  agreement  has  been  signed 
between the two countries, nor the development of a shared plan was necessary.  

The Gauja/Koiva RB is shared between Estonia and Latvia. No information was found in the 
national  FRMPs  or  on  the  European  Environment  Agency’s  WISE  regarding  any  kind  of 

international  cooperation  in  relation  principally  to  flood  risk  management.  A  background 
document on "Transboundary Cooperation between Estonia and Latvia in the frame of River 

Basin  Management  Planning  in  Gauja/Koiva  River  Basin  District"  mentions  flooding  as  a 
source of pollution in two water bodies. The document further states that cooperation in the 

RB  will  continue  with  the  aim  of  developing  a  transboundary  policy  document  for  the 
Gauja/Koiva  RB  for  the  third  RBMP  implementation.  It  is  unclear  if  this  will  also  address 

flooding issues. 

111 Finland subsequently informed that only a very small part of the RB is in Russia (2,9%) and an even smaller 
part in Norway. These parts  are very sparsely populated  small upstream catchments  with only a  very little 
human or hydrological impact on the Kemijoki RB. In addition, no flood risk issues have been identified in 
these parts from the work of the Finnish-Russian transboundary commission. 

68 

 
 
                                                 
The East Estonia RB is shared between Estonia and Russia. No information was found in the 

East Estonian FRMP or on WISE regarding any kind of international cooperation.  

The  Nemunas/Nieman/Neman/Nyoman  RB  is  shared  between  Lithuania  and  Poland,  and 

Russia and Belarus. The Polish information to WISE states that for this basin no APSFR was 
identified and no FRMP was prepared. 

4.1.3  Institutional setup and governance of the transboundary RB 

No information for any of the basins.112 

4.1.4  Coordinated consultation of FRMPs in transboundary RBs 

No information for any of the basins. 

4.1.5  Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in transboundary RBs 

No information for any of the basins.113 

4.1.6  Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps in transboundary RBs 

No information for any of the basins. 

4.1.7  Setting of objectives for the management of transboundary flood risk 

No information for any of the basins. 

4.1.8  Planning and implementation measures with transboundary effect 

No information for any of the basins. 

4.1.9  Consideration of climate change in transboundary RBs 

No information for any of the basins. 

4.2  Recommendations for next flood risk management planning cycles 

The following recommendations can be made to further improve cooperation: 

 

Formal  bilateral  or  multilateral  cooperation  mechanisms  should  be  established  on  the 
subject,  or  flood  risk  management  included  in  the  context  of  a  changing  climate  in 
already established mechanisms. 

112  Estonia  and  Latvia  subsequently  informed  that  there  was  an  agreement  signed  on  24/10/2003  between  the 
Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Latvia and the Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of 
Estonia  on  co-operation  in  protection  and  sustainable  use  of  trans-boundary  watercourses.  The  agreements 
provided for the establishment of groups of experts from the competent authorities which convene regularly 
to  exchange  information  and  to  coordinate  issues  important  for  the  development  of  the  RBMP  and  the 
FRMP. 

113 Latvia and Estonia subsequently informed that there are no trans-boundary flood risk areas (APSFR) within 
the  Gauja/Koiva  RB.  Estonia  also  informed  subsequently  that  there  are  no  trans-boundary  flood  risk  areas 
within the East Estonia RB. Therefore, there are no transboundary flood hazard and risk maps, nor flood risk 
management plans. 

69 

 
 
                                                 
70 

 
 
 
 
Annex 

Overview of international coordinating mechanisms 

Category 

iRBD 

International Coordinating 
Body/ 
International Coordinating 
Mechanism 

International Commission for the 
Protection of the Danube River 
(ICPDR) 

Means of 
coordination 

Expert Group ‘Flood 

Protection’ (FP EG) 

International Commission for the 
Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) 

Working Group 

‘Flood’ 

International Meuse Commission 
(IMC) 

International Commission for the 
Protection of the Elbe (ICPER) 

International Commission for the 
Protection of the Odra (ICPO) 

Internatioal Scheldt Commission 
(ISC) 

Danube 

Rhine 

Meuse 

Elbe 

Odra 

Scheldt (Escaut) 

Duero/Douro 

Albufeira Convention 

Guadiana 

Albufeira Convention 

Miño/Minho 

Albufeira Convention 

Tagus (Tajo/Tejo) 

Albufeira Convention 

Working Group ‘Flood 

management’ 

Working Group ‘Flood 

management’ 

Working Group ‘Flood 

management’ 

Working Group 

‘PA7b’ 

Infrastructure and 
Flood Security 
Working Group 

Infrastructure and 
Flood Security 
Working Group 

Infrastructure and 
Flood Security 
Working Group 

Working Groups on 
Hydrological 
Information, Planning 
and Information 
Exchange 

1
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

2
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

Isonzo/Soča/Soca 

Italian-Slovenian Commission for 
the hydroeconomy 

No permanent working 
group 

Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru 

Agreement between the 
Government of Ukraine and the 
Government of Poland on 
Cooperation in the Field of Water 

Ukrainian-Polish 
Working Group on 
flood control 
regulations and 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Category 

iRBD 

Ems 

Tornio/Torne 

Teno/Tana, 
Nataamo/Neiden, 
Pasvloa/Paatsjoki/Pasvik 

Means of 
coordination 

drainage 

Two working groups: 
a) an international 
coordination group 
and b) an international 
governance group 
which also deals with 

flood management 

Non-permanent 
working groups are in 
place. The Swedish 
Finnish River 
Commission can 
arrange meetings and 
working facilities for 
the working groups. 

International Coordinating 
Body/ 
International Coordinating 
Mechanism 

Management in Frontier Waters 
(signed in 1996). This agreement 
established the Ukrainian-Polish 
Commission. 
Agreement between the 
Government of the Republic of 
Moldova and the Government of 
Ukraine on the joint management 
and protection of the cross-border 
waters in 1994. 

Managed through close 
cooperation between the German 
Federal States of Lower Saxony 
and North Rhine-Westphalia and 
the Netherlands as well as with the 
German Federal Government 

No international coordinating 
body but supporting document on 
international coordination 
developed in addition to the three 
national FRMPs (DE, NL) 

Coordinated by the Swedish Civil 
Contingencies Agency, the 
Ministry of Agriculture and 
Forestry in Finland and the 
Finnish-Swedish Border 
Commission  
Finland-Sweden 
Intergovernmental Agreement of 
2010 with the objective to inter 
alia prevent flood and 
environmental accidents for the 
Torne River. 

Coordinated by the Finnish-
Norwegian Transboundary Water 
Commission and the Finnish-
Russian Transboundary 
Commission. 

72 

 
 
 
Category 

iRBD 

Garonne/ 
Cantabrico Oriental 

Garonne/Ebro 

3
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

Vistula 

International Coordinating 
Body/ 
International Coordinating 
Mechanism 

Agreement of Toulouse 
(established between Spain and 
France in February 2006) 
FRMP (ES017) includes a specific 
annex on international 
cooperation, which details all 
issues regarding this topic 

Agreement of Toulouse 
(established between Spain and 
France in February 2006) -under 
this convention it was agreed to 
make independent plans, and to 
hold technical meetings for 
coordination, but no further details 
on these meetings are provided 

Joint Commission of the Lanós 

Lake and the Upper Garonne Joint 
Commission are also in place, but 
no activities are reported. Spanish 
FRMP (ES091) refers to technical 
meetings, but no further details are 
given 

Convention on the Protection and 
Use of Transboundary 
Watercourses and International 
Lakes (17 February 2000) 
Agreement between Poland and 
Slovakia on Water Management in 
Border Countries (14 May 1997) 

Agreement between Poland and 
the Ukraine on cooperation in the 
field of water management in 
border waters (10 October 1996) 
Agreement between Poland and 
Belarus on cooperation in the field 
of environmental protection (20 
May 1992) 
Agreement between Poland and 

73 

Means of 
coordination 

No working group 

No working group 

Group R - for flood 
prevention measures, 
regulation of border 
watercourses, water 
supply, land 
improvement, 
planning and 

hydrogeology; 
HyP Group - for 
hydrology and flood 
protection, dealing 
among others among 
other exchanges and 
control of 
hydrometeorological 
information, 

 
 
 
 
Category 

iRBD 

Pregolya 

Means of 
coordination 

performing flow 
measurements on 
boundary profiles; 
Ukrainian-Polish 
Working Group on 
flood control 
regulations and 
drainage 

No working group 

International Coordinating 
Body/ 
International Coordinating 
Mechanism 

Lithuania on cooperation in the 
field of border water use and 
protection (7 June 2005) 
International cooperation in the 
area of particular water regions is 
carried out under the statutory 
tasks and concentrates on 
cooperation in border waters 
(Slovakia, Ukraine, Lithuania, 
Belarus) and other cooperation in 
the field of water management. 
This cooperation is also based on 
the arrangements for mutual 
cooperation in the implementation 
of the EU water policy. For the 
Vistula River Basin, information 
exchange with Slovakia takes 
place within the framework of the 
Polish-Slovak Border Water 
Commission and the Polish-
Ukrainian Border Water 

Commission. At present 
negotiations are underway on the 
draft agreement between Poland 
and Belarus on cooperation in the 
field of water management in 
border waters. 

International cooperation is 
coordinated by the National Water 
Management Board in Poland and 
based on two formal international 
agreements: one with Lithuania (7 
June 2005) and one with Russia 
(first signed 17 July 1964 under 
the USSR and automatically 
renewed every five years). 
National FRMPs (LT, PL) exist, 
but no iFRMP was prepared. 

Vidaa/Wiedau 

Signed bilateral joint declaration 

74 

 
 
 
Category 

iRBD 

Krusaa/Krusau 

International Coordinating 
Body/ 
International Coordinating 
Mechanism 

on cooperation between Denmark 
and Schleswig Holstein 

Signed bilateral joint declaration 
on cooperation between Denmark 
and Schleswig Holstein 

Means of 
coordination 

75