COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Austria 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: Austria, adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, disaster area, environmental risk prevention, flood, risk management, water, water management, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2019  SWD(2019) 64 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Austria Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}  
 
 
2. 

Table of contents 
Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... 3 
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4 
Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 5 
Overview of the assessment .................................................................................................... 8 
Good Practices....................................................................................................................... 11 
Areas for further development .............................................................................................. 12 
Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 14 
1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment .............................. 15 
1.1  Reporting of the FRMPs ............................................................................................ 15 
1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs ......................................................................................... 15 
 Integration of previously reported information ............................................................ 16 
2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment................................ 16 
Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs .................... 17 
2.2 
2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas ................................................... 18 
2.4  Areas  for further development  in  the earlier assessment  of the flood hazard and risk 
maps   .................................................................................................................................... 18 
2.5  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration 
of previously reported information ....................................................................................... 19 
3. Setting of Objectives ............................................................................................................. 20 
Focus of objectives ..................................................................................................... 20 
3.1 
Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................ 20 
3.2 
3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ........................................... 20 
3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding ............................. 21 
Process for setting the objectives ............................................................................... 21 
3.5 
3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ....... 21 
4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ........................................................... 22 
4.1  Cost of measures ........................................................................................................ 22 
4.2 
Funding of measures .................................................................................................. 23 
4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures ............................................ 24 
4.4  Measures and objectives............................................................................................. 25 
4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures .................................................................... 25 
Prioritisation of measures ........................................................................................... 25 
4.6 
4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ........................................... 27 
4.8 
Progress of implementation of measures ................................................................... 27 
4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ........................................................... 28 
4.10  Specific groups of measures ....................................................................................... 28 
4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding .................................................................. 29 

1 

 
4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ...................................................... 30 
4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive ................................................... 31 
4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures ............. 33 
5. Consideration of climate change ........................................................................................... 35 
Specific types of measures planned to mitigate expected effects of climate change . 35 
5.1 
5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change ......... 36 
6. Cost-benefit analysis ............................................................................................................. 37 
6.1  Good practices and areas for further development concerning cost/benefit analysis 37 
7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation .. 38 
7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................ 38 
Public information and consultation .......................................................................... 38 
7.2 
7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders .......................................................................... 40 
7.4 
Effects of consultation ................................................................................................ 41 
Strategic Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 42 
7.5 
7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................ 42 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 43 
Background & method .......................................................................................................... 43 
Types of measures used in reporting ..................................................................................... 44 
List of Annex A tables & figures .......................................................................................... 45 
Measures overview ................................................................................................................ 46 
Measure details: cost ............................................................................................................. 48 
Measure details: name & location ......................................................................................... 48 
Measure details: objectives ................................................................................................... 48 
Measure details: authorities ................................................................................................... 50 
Measure details: progress ...................................................................................................... 51 
Measure details: other ........................................................................................................... 54 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types .................................................................................... 55 
Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures .................................................................. 56 

2 

 
 
 Acronyms 

APSFR 
EEA 
FD 
FHRM 
FRMP 
NGO 
NWRM 
PFRA 
PoM 
RBD 
RBMP 
SEA 
UoM 
WFD 
WISE 
WLV 

Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 
European Environment Agency 
Floods Directive 
Flood Hazard and Risk Map 
Flood Risk Management Plan 
Non-Governmental Organisation 
Natural Water Retention Measures 
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments 
Programme of Measures 
River Basin District 
River Basin Management Plan 
Strategic Environmental Assessment 
Unit of Management 
Water Framework Directive 
Water Information System for Europe 
Wildbach- und Lawinenverbauung 

3 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

The  Floods  Directive  (FD)  (2007/60/EC)  requires  each  Member  State  to  assess  its  territory 

for  significant  risk  from  flooding,  to  map  the  flood  extent,  identify  the  potential  adverse 
consequences  of  future  floods  for  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and 

economic  activity  in  these  areas,  and  to  take  adequate  and  coordinated  measures  to  reduce 
this flood risk. By the end of 2011, Member States were to prepare Preliminary Flood Risk 

Assessments  (PFRAs)  and  to  identify  the  river  basins  and  coastal  areas  at  risk  of  flooding 
(Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk – APSFRs). By the end of 2013, Flood Hazard & 

Risk Maps (FHRMs) were to be drawn up for such areas. On this basis, Member States were 
to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by the end of 2015.  

This  report  assesses  the  FRMPs  for  Austria1.  Its  structure  follows  a  common  assessment 
template used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources:  

  Member State reporting to the European Commission on the FRMPs2 as per Articles 7 
and 15 of the FD: this reporting provides an overview of the Plans and details on their 

measures. 

  The actual FRMP: Austria has three Units of Management (UoMs), of which two have 
APSFRs,  however,  one  FRMP  was  reported  on  the  national  level,  covering  all  three 
UoMs AT1000, AT2000 and AT5000. The national-level FRMP was assessed, as well 

as  the  reported  information  on  AT1000  and  AT2000  (from  the  reporting  sheets).  On 
AT5000, there is no such data, as there are no APSFRs, there are no flood hazard maps 

or flood risk maps. 

1  The  present  Member  State  assessment  report  reflects  the  situation  as  reported  by  each  Member  State  to  the 
Commission  in  2016  or  2017  and  with  reference  to  FRMPs  prepared  earlier.  The  situation  in  the  MSs  may 
have altered since then. 

2   Referred to as “Reporting Sheets” throughout this report. Data must be reported in a clear and consistent way 
by  all  Member  States.  The  format  for  reporting  was  jointly  elaborated  by  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission as part of a collaborative process called the “Common Implementation Strategy”: 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm 
Whereas a key role of the Commission is to check compliance with EU legislation, the Commission also seeks 
information to allow it to determine whether existing policies are adequate. It also requires certain information 
to create a European-wide picture to inform the public. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview 

Figure 1 Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts 

  International River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) 
  National River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  Countries (outside European Union) 
  Coastal Waters 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) as presented in the 2012 RBMP assessment reports 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Austria has  three Units  of Management (UoMs) for which in  total  391 Areas of Potentially 
Significant Floods Risk (APSFRs) have been assigned, see the table below for an overview.  

Austria  reported  one  FRMP  on  the  national  level,  covering  all  three  UoMs:  AT1000 
(Danube),  AT2000  (Rhine)  and  AT5000  (Elbe).  The  territories  of  these  three  UoMs 

correspond to the territories of Austria’s three River Basin Districts (RBDs) designated under 
the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  and  have  the  same  codes  and  names:  AT1000 

Danube, AT2000 Rhine and AT5000 Elbe.   

The  FRMP  document  consists  of  a  main  body  plus  annexes  (two  PDFs),  and  four 
supplementary documents  (four PDFs3). Austria submitted reporting sheets to  the European 
Commission  for  AT1000  and  AT2000.  Files  were  not  reported  for  AT5000,  and  a 

supplementary  note  states  that  as  there  are  no  APSFRs  identified  in  AT5000,  there  are  no 
flood  hazard  maps,  flood  risk  maps,  and  hence  no  requirement  to  report  an  FRMPs. 

Nevertheless,  for  each  UoM  individually  (also  for  AT5000),  the  respective  International 
FRMPs were submitted (three PDFs, plus one annex). 

Austria’s  FRMP  was  approved  by  an  order  of  the  Minister  of  Agriculture,  Forestry, 
Environment and Water Management4. 

The  table  below  gives  an  overview  of  all  UoMs  in  Austria,  including  the  UoM  code,  the 
name, and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if the UoM reported all documents 

required  to  the  European  Environment  Agency’s  (EEA)  Water  Information  System  for 
Europe (WISE)5 – the FRMP as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML. The table does not 
show if hyperlinks to national websites were reported, even if these national websites contain 
the FRMP.  

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Austria 

UoM 

AT1000 

AT2000 

AT5000 

TOTAL 

Name 

Danube 

Rhine 

Elbe 

Number of APSFRs 

XML Reported 

PDF Reported 

372 

19 

0 

391 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

3  These are labelled "Background Documents" and consist of: a brochure for the public participation campaign, 
two documents on measures (background on the catalogue of measures and on the planning of measures), and 
one document on the environment report of the SEA. 
4  Currently the Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism. 
5  http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/603/deliveries?id=603&tab=deliveries&d-4014547-p=1&d-4014547-

o=2&d-4014547-s=3  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The FRMP can be downloaded from the following web pages: 

  https://www.bmnt.gv.at/wasser/wisa/fachinformation/hochwasserrisiko/hochwasserrisik

oplan/managementplan.html  

  https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Bundesnormen/NOR40186903/II_268_2016_An

hang_1.pdf  

7 

 
 
 
 
Overview of the assessment 

The  table  below  gives  an  overview  of  the  evidence  found  during  the  assessment  of  the 

FRMPs. The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: 

  Evidence  to  the  contrary:  An  explicit  statement  was  found  stating  that  the  criterion 

was not met. 

  No evidence: No information found to indicate that the criterion was met. 

  Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication 
of  the  approach  used  for  the  criterion.  Depending  on  the  comment  in  the  adjacent 
column, “some evidence” could also be construed as “weak evidence”. 

  Strong evidence: Clear information provided, describing an approach followed in the 

FRMP to address the criterion. 

Table 2 

Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Flood  risk  management 
objectives 
been 
established  

have 

Strong evidence 

The Austrian objectives are general and based on 
the "Hochwasserrisikokreislauf" (flood risk cycle), 
which itself is based on the disaster risk 
management cycle (response/rehabilitation and 
reconstruction/prevention and mitigation/ 
preparedness). 

Flood risk management objectives relate to... 

...the reduction of potential 
adverse consequences  

Strong evidence  

This aspect is mentioned in the definition of 
objectives in the FRMP. 

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

Strong evidence  

This aspect is mentioned in the definition of 
objectives in the FRMP. 

...to non-structural 
initiatives  

Strong evidence  

This aspect is specified in the definition of 
objectives in the FRMPs. 

Flood risk management objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to... 

...human health  

Some evidence  

Objective No 3 ("Reduction of adverse 
consequences during and after a flood event") 
refers to adverse consequences, which are 
described later on in the FRMP and encompass 
human health, economic activity, environment and 
cultural heritage. Hence, it can be concluded that 

8 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

the objectives consider potential adverse 
consequences to all four aspects. 

...economic activity  

Some evidence  

See above under human health 

...environment  

Some evidence  

See above under human health. 

...cultural heritage  

Some evidence  

See above under human health 

Measures have been... 

...identified  

Strong evidence  

...prioritised  

Strong evidence  

The FRMP describes a set of 22 planned, ongoing 
or completed measures; the annex complements 
this description by showing the status of each 
measure for each APSFR. 

The measures in the FRMP are prioritised. 
However, there is no concrete methodology used 
in setting priorities. Instead, the national FRMP 
describes several factors which were consulted for 
setting the priorities, but without explaining in any 
detail how these factors where weighed. It is only 
mentioned that the factors were discussed and 
consulted, and the priorities set accordingly. 
The factors are: contribution of the measure to 
reach the objectives, effect on risk reduction, cost-
effectiveness or cost-benefit, general need for the 
measure, whether it is a structural or non-structural 
measure, relevance for WFD implementation and 
climate change adaptation. 

Relevant aspects of Article 7 have been taken into account such as... 

...costs & benefits  

Some evidence  

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

The FRMP refers to cost-effectiveness and cost-
benefit relations as a criterion for the 
establishment of priorities for the selection of 
measures, but without going into any detail. 

The flood extent is shown for each APSFR on the 
corresponding map. 

9 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...flood conveyance  

Some evidence  

...water retention  

Strong evidence  

...environmental objectives 
of the WFD  

Strong evidence  

Flood conveyance routes are not mentioned 
specifically in the FRMP6, especially not with 
regard to the PFRA. However, the APSFRs were 
coordinated with the "Wildbach- und 
Lawinenverbauung (WLV)", i.e. with small 
streams and avalanche routes, which could be 
regarded as conveyance routes. 

There are a great number of measures on natural 
water retention measures (NWRM) (M07). 

The FRMP refers to the necessity of coordination 
between the FRMP and River Basin Management 
Plan (RBMP), and the obligation to foster the 
achievement of the WFD objectives, which often 
leads to the selection of sustainable solutions, like 
NWRM. Also, the relevance for WFD 
implementation is a factor in the prioritisation of 
measures. 

...spatial planning/land use   Strong evidence   With regard to spatial planning/land use measures, 
eight measures are included in the national FRMP. 

...nature conservation  

Strong evidence   One national measure type (M07, Restoration of 

flood plains and sedimentation areas) refers to 
nature conservation. 

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

No evidence  

In the Austrian FRMP, measures do not 
specifically consider ports and navigation.7 

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Some evidence   With regard to climate change, the Austrian FRMP 

refers to the Austrian Climate Change Adaptation 
Strategy and accompanying research reports and 
predictions. The results, to date, of these studies 
analysing climate change are that the uncertainties 
regarding the modelling of extreme fluvial flood 
events are very significant, and still higher than the 

6  Austria noted subsequently that Austrian planning instruments, especially the hazard zone plan (according to 
the  water  law  and  forest  law)  and  the  hydrodynamic  modelling  in  the  frame  of  the  so  called 
“Abflussuntersuchung – river flow analyses”, provide all relevant information of flood conveyance routes. This 
had been reported under the FHRM and, therefore, was not reported again under the FRMP. 

7 Austria noted subsequently that navigation, port infrastructure and dredging are implicitly incorporated into a 

national measure on maintenance of protection and mitigation measures, river maintenance. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

expected effects of climate change on expected 
future extreme events (themselves based on 
extrapolations of past observations). Hence, 
climate change is considered, but there are neither 
specific measures for this, nor are measures 
adapted to accommodate for climate change8. 

Strong evidence   All three Austrian UoMs are transboundary UoMs, 

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Coordination ensured 
with WFD  

Strong evidence  

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Strong evidence  

and in all three an international coordination 
process has taken place. 

The FRMP refers to the necessity of coordination 
between the FRMP and RBMP, and the obligation 
to foster the achievement of the WFD objectives. 
Furthermore, the consultation process was 
coordinated with the WFD process, and the 
impacts of measures for reaching WFD objectives 
were considered in the prioritisation of measures. 

In Austria, a broad public information and 
consultation strategy was followed for the 
consultation on the FRMP (including information 
of the public), using multiple public relations 
channels, notably dialogue platforms for topics 
related to water management (namely the Round 
Table on Water and a platform called 
"Flussdialog"/River Dialogue, which targeted a 
large number of stakeholders as well as the general 
populace). 

Good Practices 

The assessment identified the following good practices in the Austrian FRMPs assessed: 

Table 3 

Good practices in the Austrian FRMPs 

Topic area 
Integration of previously 
reported information in 

Good practice identified 

The processes of the PFRA and the preparation of the FHRMs are 
described comprehensively. Also, information and data sources in 

8  Austria clarified subsequently that the effectiveness of measures for climate change adaptation was considered 

in the prioritization of measures (p.163 of the FRMP). 

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
the FRMPs. 

Planning/implementing 
of measures and their 
prioritization for the 
achievement of 
objectives. 
Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Use of cost-benefit 
analysis in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Coordination with the 
WFD 

Public participation.  

Flood risk governance.  

International issues in 
flood risk management.  

addition to the PFRA are identified (results from run-off models, 
zoning/hazard zoning according to Austrian law, hazard zoning plans 
according to the 1975 forestry law, and the floods zoning (HORA) for 
Austria); these sources also seem to have been used to enhance the 
overall quality of the FHRMs, but how or to which degree is unclear. 
Austria has implemented or planned a great number of Natural Water 
Retention Measures: in 96 APSFRs, NWRM are ongoing or planned; 
in 32 APSFRS, NWRM are already completed; and in over 200 
APSFRs, NWRM are foreseen in the second implementation cycle. 

There is a reference to the Austrian Climate Change Adaptation 
Strategy and the respective background documents/prognoses and a 
good summary of their findings.  
The effectiveness of measures for climate change adaptation was 
considered in the prioritisation of the measures.  
Non-structural and spatial planning measures are considered no regret 
measures with regard to climate change adaptation. 
Cost-effectiveness of measures is assessed qualitatively, in a 
comprehensive way, and summarised in three clear categories (very 
high / high / ’balanced’, i.e. no net benefit determined in a qualitative 
way): these cost-effectiveness assessments are reported to be used as a 
criterion for the prioritisation of measures. 
Austria’s FRMP highlights coordination with the country’s RBMP and 
the obligation to foster WFD objectives, which can lead to the 
selection of sustainable solutions, notably NWRM. Moreover, the 
overlap between APSFRs and water bodies with WFD requirements, 
especially with regard to hydromorphology, has been assessed, and a 
summary of status and objectives for each of the concerned water 
bodies produced: in overlapping water bodies/APSFRs, coordination 
is required between concerned authorities. 
A broad public information and consultation strategy was followed for 
the consultation on the FRMP. 
A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been carried out for 
the FRMP. Coordination of the FRMP with the RBMPs under the 
WFD was conducted. Coordination with local authorities and 
authorities from other departments (than those responsible for floods) 
was undertaken. 
All three Austrian UoMs are transboundary UoMs, and in all three an 
international coordination process has taken place. 

Areas for further development 

The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the Austrian FRMPs 
assessed: 

12 

 
 
 
Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Austrian FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Integration of previously 
reported information in 
the FRMPs. 

Setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk.  

Planning/implementation 
of measures and their 
prioritization for the 
achievement of objectives.  

It is not clearly described in the FRMP how the PFRA and the FHRMs 
influenced the objectives, priorities and planning of measures.  

The hyperlinks included in the FRMP to the FHRMs do not work 
anymore9,10. 

The objectives are not measurable (no timeframe, no indicators), since 
they are formulated in a very generic way11. 

It is neither clear how measures will contribute to the objectives, nor 
by how much, as there is both a lack of a baseline12, as well as of 
indicators that would allow this (also, the objectives are not specific 
and measurable). It is also not clear whether the objectives will be 
achieved, when all measures are completed.  

Information on costs and financing sources is incomplete and in many 
cases missing. Additionally, the prioritisation of the measures is not 
clearly described, and the overall evaluation of the effects of the 
FRMP is only vaguely described in Austria’s 1st FRMP. There is no 
indication in the tables on measures and measure implementation, in 
the annex to the FRMP, of the priority of the measure at hand, which 
would be useful to assess the relation between priority and planned 
implementation.  

The measures in the Austrian FRMP could be described best as "partly 
specific and measurable", as it is made clear what the measures are 
trying to achieve, where they are to be achieved, and by when. The 
"how" is not or only partly answered13. 
With regard to the coordination with the WFD, Austria does not 
associate the reported FD measures to WFD measures. 

Consideration of climate 

The reference to the Austrian Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and 

9  In addition, several other hyperlinks were found to not work, including those to the Austrian Climate Change 
Adaptation  Strategy  and  the  respective  background  documents/prognoses  and  to  the  SEA  Environmental 
report. 

10  Austria informed subsequently that the renaming of the  Ministry  may  have caused inaccessibility of certain 

links. The problem has been resolved since; https://maps.wisa.bmnt.gv.at/hochwasser 

11  Austria  informed  subsequently  that  even  a  general  objective  like  “reducing  existing  risk”  is  measurable  by 
comparing  e.g.  the  people  exposed.  A  methodology  will  be  considered  for  the  second  cycle  following  the 
incorporation of lessons learnt. 

12 Austria informed subsequently that the situation at the start of the implementation cycle in 2015 will serve as a 

baseline. 

13 In the background document “Maßnahmenkatalog”, the responsible authorities, the legal framework and the 

coordination needs are briefly stated. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Use of cost-benefit 
analysis in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Public participation.  

Recommendations 

the respective background documents is not provided directly. It is 
unclear how the climate change adaptation effects of measures were 
considered in the prioritisation of the measures. 

It is not clearly described how cost-effectiveness assessments 
influenced the prioritisation of measures. 

The concrete effects of the consultation are not summarised in the 
FRMP. 

Based on the reported information and the FRMP, the following recommendations are made 
to enhance flood risk management (not listed in any particular order):  

  To be able to assess progress, the objectives of the FRMP should be measurable to the 

extent possible. How measures link to objectives should be considered. 

  The  process  of  prioritisation  of  measures  should  be  better  explained,  e.g.  how  the 
different  factors  were  considered  and  weighted  (including  where  applicable 
consideration of climate change).  

  More  detailed  information  on  costs  and  financing  sources  should  be  included  in  the 
planning  of  measures.  Based  on  cost  and  benefit  information,  a  more  detailed 

methodology  for  assessing  cost-effectiveness/cost-benefits  should  be  considered  (e.g. 
for prioritisation of measures that lend themselves to it). 

 

It is important to ensure that FRMPs, PFRAs/APSFRs and FHRMs refer to each other 
as appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public 

in an accessible format, including digitally. 

14 

 
 
 
 
1.   Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the 

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Austria has three UoMs for which in total 391 APSFRs have been assigned.  

Austria reported one FRMP on the national level, covering all three UoMs: AT1000, AT2000 

and  AT5000.  Additionally,  for  each  UoM  individually,  the  respective  International  Plans 
were  submitted  (three  PDFs,  plus  one  annex  for  the  Danube).  Austria  did  not  employ  Art. 

13.3 of the FD, which allows Member States to make use of previous flood risk management 
plans (provided their content is equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive).    

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

For Austria, the national-level FRMP has been assessed, as well as the reported information 

on AT1000 and AT2000 (reporting sheets and XML data uploaded to WISE). For AT5000, 
which  has  no  APSFRs,  Austria  did  not  provide  reporting  sheets.  The  national  FRMP  was 

assessed. As noted, this plan covers all three UoMs in Austria: 

Table 5 

UoMs covered by the national FRMP assessed 

UoM code 

AT1000 

AT2000 

AT5000 

UoM Name 

Danube 

Rhine 

Elbe 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

The conclusions of the preliminary flood risk  assessment  are described in  detail  in  chapters 

3.1 to 3.3 of the FRMP, both as text and tables, and as a summary map. APSFR or other flood 
risk areas shared with other Member States in international UoMs are not explicitly depicted, 

although these are included in the main summary map; the scale of this map is not big enough 
to discern individual APSFRs or water bodies. 

There is no link provided to maps/the summary map for the APSFRs14. A link is provided to 
national hazard and risk maps15, and these should also include the APSFRs, but the link does 
not work16. 

Flood conveyance routes are not mentioned specifically in the FRMP, and not with regard to 
the  PFRA17.  However,  the  APSFR  considered  the  WLV,  i.e.  small  streams  and  avalanche 
routes, which could be regarded as conveyance routes18. 

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

Section  two  of  the  FRMP  describes  the  coordination  with  neighbouring  states,  which  takes 

place  in  the  context  of  the  respective  international  river  commissions;  in  the  Danube, 
coordination  took  place  also  in  the  respective  expert  group  on  floods.  In  the  International 

FRMP of the Danube Commission, shared APSFRs are identified. In the Austrian part of the 
Rhine  basin,  19  APSFRs  are  identified,  but  it  is  not  explained  in  the  FRMP  whether  these 
were coordinated in the Rhine Commission’s Expert Group19. In the Elbe international RBD, 
no APSFRs were identified in Austria.  

2.1.2  Information how the PFRA was used for the development of the FHR maps 

The  FRMP  reports  that  the  PFRA  and  the  identified  APSFRs  were  used  as  the  basis  for 

developing the flood hazard (FHM) and flood risk (FRM) maps; some additional sources of 

14  The following link was subsequently provided by Austria: http://maps.wisa.bmnt.gv.at/hochwasser  
15  FRMP p.16. 
16  https://www.bmlfuw.gv.at/wasser/wisa/wasserkarten/hochwasser/gefahrenkarten.html  
17 Austria noted subsequently that Austrian planning instruments, especially the hazard zone plan (according to 
the  water  law  and  forest  law)  and  the  hydrodynamic  modelling  in  the  frame  of  the  so  called 
“Abflussuntersuchung  –  river  flow  analyses”,  provide  all  relevant  information  of  flood  conveyance  routes. 
This had been reported under the FHRM and, therefore, was not reported again under the FRMP. 

18  FRMP p. 13 and Annex. 
19 Austria subsequently confirmed that coordination takes place. 

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
information  were  also  consulted  (results  from  run-off  models,  zoning/hazard  zoning 
according to  Austrian law, hazard zoning plans  according to  the 1975  forestry law, and the 

floods  zoning  (HORA)  for  Austria).  The  FRMP  (chapters  3.4  and  3.5)  states  that  the  flood 
hazard maps cover more areas than the APSFR if possible, but it is not specified how much 

more or which areas in addition to the APSFRs.  

2.2 

Presentation  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Risk  Maps  (FHRMs)  in  the 
FRMPs 

The FHRM have been provided in the form of hyperlinks in the FRMPs. There are references 

to  maps  for  fluvial  floods,  but  not  for  floods  from  pluvial,  groundwater,  artificial  water 
bearing structures or non-specific sources20, nor the combined effects of more than one source 
of flooding. It must be noted that the link to both the flood hazard and the flood risk maps as 
provided in the FRMP do not work21.  

In  Austria,  fluvial  and  pluvial  past  flood  events  have  been  considered  as  significant. 
However,  no  APSFRs  have  been  designated  for  pluvial  flooding,  as  these  are  very  local 
events in Austria22, and the uncertainties were considered too high. Floods from groundwater 
and  artificial  water  bearing  structures  are  not  considered  significant,  and  again  no  APSFRs 
have  been  designated.  Hence,  only  for  fluvial  floods  (including  floods  from  lakes)  have 

APSFRs  been  designated,  and  only  for  these  floods  have  flood  hazard  and  flood  risk  maps 
been produced23.  

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

Flood  hazard  and  flood  risk  maps  have  not  been  specifically  prepared  for  flood  risk  areas 

shared  with  other  Member  States  as  there  are  none  according  to  Austria.  However,  in  the 
International FRMP of the Danube Commission, shared APSFRs are identified, and in Annex 

I to the Report, aggregate maps showing summaries of the national flood hazard or flood risk 
maps  are  presented,  but  these  are  not  flood  hazard  or  flood  risk  maps  in  the  sense  of  the 
Directive24.  

20  Nor for seawater sources, which are not relevant for Austria. 
21  https://www.bmlfuw.gv.at/wasser/wisa/wasserkarten/hochwasser/risikokarte.html  
22  Austria clarified subsequently that pluvial flooding is considered a general risk, which will be incorporated to 

the second cycle PFRA by means of a hazard indication map. 

23  FRMP chapter 3.1 for significance (p. 11 and 12), chapter 3.4 and 3.5 for the maps; links on p. 16 and 19. 
24  FRMP chapters 3.4 (FHM) and 3.5 (FRM); International FRMP Danube chapter 3 and Annex I. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

It  is  not  clear  in  the  FRMP  how  the  FHRMs  have  inspired  the  content  of  the  plan,  in 
particular, with regard to priorities, objectives and measures. The conclusions drawn from the 

flood hazard and flood risk maps presented in the FRMP describe the flood hazard and flood 
risk  maps  only  “statistically”  in  terms  of  “area  impacted”,  “people  impacted”,  “number  of 

industry locations impacted” etc. Though it is indicated that the FHRMs are used as a basis 
for the planning of measures (FRMP, p.20), it is not described how. Regarding priorities and 
objectives, there is no mention of the FHRMs25. 

2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

Any changes in the identification of APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas since December 2011 
should be reflected in the FRMP. No such changes are described in the FRMP26. In addition, 
there are no changes described in the FRMP for the Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps since 
December 201327. 

2.4 

Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood 
hazard and risk maps 

The  review  of  Austria’s  FHRMs28  did  not  identify  significant  negative  issues  identified 
regarding the flood risk and hazard maps in the FHRM assessment for Austria: They are all of 
a  very  high  quality  and  good  scale  (1:50  00029),  were  at  the  time  easily  accessible,  and 
comprehensive. 

Minor issues that could be improved were: to add contact information to the maps or website 

(specific mail address or telephone number); furthermore, the expressions "hazard" and "risk" 
or "potentially significant risk" are not explained on the maps, but sound very technical  - an 

easy-to-grasp explanation could be helpful for the public. 

None of these minor areas for further development are explicitly addressed within the FRMPs 
assessed  or  the  reporting.  Furthermore,  the  links  provided  in  the  FRMP  no  longer  work30.

25  FRMP chapters 3.5 (FRMP), 4 (objectives) and 5 (PoM). 
26  Austria confirmed subsequently that there are no changes to the APSFRs. 
27  FRMP chapter 3. 
28  Based on: European Commission, Assessment of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps – Member State Report: 

AT – Austria, 2015. Available at: 

  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/AT%20FHRM%20Report.pdf  
29  Austria recalled that the scale of the maps is 1:25 000, however the text on the maps suggests differently. 
30  FRMP chapter 3, links on p. 16 and 19. 

18 

 
 
                                                 
2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The  processes  of  the  PFRA  and  the  preparation  of  the  FHRMs  are  described 
comprehensively.  Also,  information  and  data  sources  in  addition  to  the  PFRA  are 

identified  (results  from  run-off  models,  zoning/hazard  zoning  according  to  Austrian 
law,  hazard  zoning  plans  according  to  the  1975  forestry  law,  and  the  floods  zoning 

(HORA) for Austria); these sources also seem to have been used to enhance the overall 
quality of the FHRMs.  

The following areas for further development were identified:  

 

It is not clearly described in the FRMP how the PFRA and the FHRMs influenced the 
objectives, priorities and planning of measures.  

  Maintain the internet links to the FHRMs. 

19 

 
 
 
 
3. Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

The  Austrian  objectives  are  based  on  the  "Hochwasserrisikokreislauf"  (flood  risk  cycle), 

which  itself  is  based  on  the  disaster  risk  management  cycle  (response/rehabilitation, 
reconstruction/prevention and mitigation/preparedness). From this, four generic objectives are 

formulated (and referred to below): 

1.  Avoidance of new risks prior to a flood event. 
2.  Reduction of existing risks prior to a flood event. 
3.  Reduction of adverse consequences during and after a flood event. 
4.  Strengthening the awareness of hazard and risk. 

These four objectives fall, in a very general sense, into the following categories below31:  

  The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods.  
  The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding32. 
  The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented. 
  The objectives refer to non-structural measures33.  

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

In Austria, objectives are neither specific nor measurable, with the four objectives described 
above formulated in a very generic way34. 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

In the FRMPs assessed, objectives do not provide further specification of the type of adverse 
consequences that will be reduced. As mentioned previously, objectives are formulated in a 
very  generic  way.  In  terms  of  adverse  consequences,  it  is  mentioned  that  "the  risk  for  all 

protected assets can be reduced" (Objective No 3). 

31  These categories are included in Art. 7 of the FD.  
32  The assessment adopts the generally accepted definition of risk as a product of consequence times likelihood, 

thereby also in alignment with Art. 7(2) of the FD. 

33  Non-structural measures include measures such as flood forecasting and raising awareness of flooding as well 

as land use planning, economic instruments and insurance. 

34Austria  subsequently  noted  that  even  a  general  objective  such  as  “reducing  existing  risk”  is  measurable  by 

comparing e.g. the people exposed and that a methodology will be considered for the 2nd cycle of the FD. 

20 

 
 
                                                 
3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

Objectives No 1 (Avoidance of new risks prior to a flood event) and 2 (Reduction of existing 
risks prior to a flood event) are the objectives that address the reduction of the likelihood of 

flooding. These objectives do not specifically mention measures, but name general measure 
types that  could  serve to reach these objectives.  They  are planning  and other non-structural 

measures,  modification  of  structural  measures,  new  structural  measures,  and  removal  of 
assets at risk from risk areas. 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

There is no description in the national FRMP how the objectives were coordinated at national 

or  regional  levels,  whether  climate  change  has  been  taken  into  account,  or  whether  the 
objectives  have  been  discussed  with  stakeholders,  except  for  general  statements  concerning 

the overall coordination of all aspects of the FRMP. 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The  objectives  are  not  measurable  (no  timeframe,  no  indicators),  since  they  are 
formulated in a very generic way. How to assess achievement of should be considered. 

21 

 
 
 
 
4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Across  all  three  of  Austria’s  UoMs,  the  total  number  of  individual  measures  reported  to 
WISE is 035, and the number of aggregated36 measures is 9 77537.  

Many  of  the  national  measures  are  assigned  to  more  than  one  measure  type38.  As  the 
assessment  database  focuses  on  measures  by  type,  this  total  count  is  used  for  comparison 

across types: the total number of measures across all the measure types, counting those which 
have been allocated to more than one measure type39, is 15 249. Nearly all measures (around 
95 %) are undertaken in AT1000 (Danube): 14 508, compared to 741 in AT2000 (Rhine). In 
AT5000 (Elbe), no measures are located, as no APSFRs are defined. 

Across the four measure aspects defined, protection measures are in the majority, with 5 474 
measures or around 36 % of the total measures. These are followed by prevention (4 301 or 

around 28 %), preparedness (3 128 or around 21 %) and recovery measures (2 346 or about 
15 %)40. 

4.1 

Cost of measures 

Information on the costs of planned measures were not reported for any of the measures. The 

FRMP does not provide any explanation of the costs, though for some measures, rough costs 
are provided but without details that would allow any overall estimation: 

  For Austrian measure type M01 in the FRMP (equivalent to EU measure type M2141 – 
see Annex B below), costs per area/length are provided (i.e. “euro per river kilometre”). 

35  Austria  noted  subsequently  that  FRMPs  are  also  developed  at  APSFR  level:  these  include  individual     

measures. 

36 The Reporting Guidance mentions “Measures can be reported as individual measures (recommended for major 
projects)  or  aggregated  measures,…”  and  also  notes  that  measures  may  be  comprised  of  “many  individual 
projects”. European Commission, Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC), 2013, pp. 54-58. 

37  The information reported to WISE was the starting point for the assessment in this section. The majority of 
the statistics presented are based on processing of information reported to  WISE. Assuming that the Member 
States accurately transferred the information contained in their FRMPs to the reporting sheets (the sheets are 
the same for all Member States and are not customisable) and barring any undetected errors in the transfer of 
this information to WISE arising from the use of interfacing electronic tools, these statistics should reflect the 
content of the FRMPs. 

38  Measure types are listed in Annex B. 
39  i.e. measures allocated to more than one type are counted each time. 
40  Counting each time a measure is allocated to a type. More information can be found in Annex A. 
41  Prevention, Avoidance, Measures to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas,    

such as land use planning policies or regulation. 

22 

 
 
                                                 
  For Austrian measure type M03 in the FRMP (part of M2442 in Annex B) general costs 
for planning documents and studies are provided (i.e. "more than €10 000 up to several 

€100 000 ").  

  For  Austrian  M17  in  the  FRMP  (part  of  EU  M24  in  Annex  B)  general  costs  for 

modelling studies are provided ("more than €10 000 up to several €100 000"). 

  For  Austrian  M09  in  the  FRMP  (EU  M3543  in  Annex  B),  costs  for  private  protection 

measures are stated to be "several €1 000". 

  For Austrian M18 in the FRMP (EU M5144 in Annex B) general costs for reaction and 

recovery plans are provided ("more than €1 000 up to several €10 000"). 

The national FRMP is valid for all three UoMs, hence there are no differences between UoMs 

(except of course that no measures are planned in AT5000). 

4.2 

Funding of measures 

For some of the described measures, there is a section on financing (FRMP chapter 5.6 on the 
Programme of Measures - PoM). It lists the possible sources of financing, mostly in terms of 

responsibilities (e.g. federal/regional/local level). Beside the public funds, the beneficiary of 
the measures is listed as responsible several times; this was ticked as "private investments". 

The EU-LIFE programme was mentioned for Austrian measure type M07 (NWRM).  

The  table  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  information  found.  Please  note  that  these  are 

indicated as  “possible sources of financing” and  that the information is  not  provided for all 
measures.  

Table 6 

Funding of measures 

Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding  

Use of public budget (national level)  

Use of public budget (regional level)  

Use of public budget (local level)  

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

42  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...) 

43 Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to enhance protection against flooding, which may include flood  

defence asset maintenance programmes or policies. 

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

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Private investment  

EU funds (generic)  

EU Structural funds  

EU Solidarity Fund45  

EU Cohesion funds  

EU CAP funds  

International funds  

EU-LIFE programme 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

An annex to the national FRMP, the catalogue of measures, provides a general description of 
measures,  including  what  they  are  trying  to  achieve;  however,  neither  the  FRMP  (in  its 

presentations  at  the  level  of  the  UoM)  nor  the  catalogue  provides  a  clear  and  explicit 
description of the measures with regard to how they are to be achieved. 

The measures described in the national FRMP are not specific and measurable; instead, the 22 
measures described are a list of general options, to be concretely planned and implemented at 

the  level  of  each  APSFR.  Consulting  the  annex  to  the  national  FRMP,  it  is  made  clear  in 
which APSFRs (i.e. where) the measures are foreseen. 

The (national) FRMP also does identify by when measures are expected to be achieved: in the 

annex to the national FRMP, there is a list containing each measure (organised by APSFRs), 
identifying the current status of the measure (from "not begun" to "fully implemented"), and 

the  target  status  for  2021.  In  the  description  of  the  measures  in  the  (national)  FRMP,  it  is 
described "what the measures are trying to achieve" on a very general level, i.e. not APSFR-
specific or with regard to reaching objectives.  

Summarising, the measures in the Austrian FRMP could be described best as "partly specific 
and  measurable",  as  it  is  made  only  partly  clear  what  the  measures  are  trying  to  achieve, 
where they are to be achieved, and by when. The "how" is not or only partly answered46, e.g. 
in  the  background  document  “Maßnahmenkatalog”,  where  the  responsible  authorities,  the 

legal framework and the coordination needs are briefly stated.  

45  Austria  subsequently  noted  that  in  case  of  major  flood  disasters,  funding  of  measure  type  M20 
(Sofortmaßnahmen) can be supported by the EU Solidarity Fund which was mobilised for the enormous flood 
damages in the years 2002, 2005 and 2013. 

46  FRMP chapter 5, especially 5.6 (the PoM), and the Annex to the FRMP. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.4  Measures and objectives 

It  is  not  clear  how  measures  will  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  objectives,  nor  clear  by 
how  much  they  will  contribute.  It  is  also  not  clear  whether  the  objectives  will  be  achieved 

when all measures are completed. The measures have associated indicators that monitor the 
effort (i.e. the change in the status), but not the impact. Additionally, the (general) objectives 

established in the FRMP are not measurable (as discussed above). For these reasons, it may 
not be possible to assess progress against objectives47 48.  

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

Each measure reported by Austria has been designated a single ASPFR. Thus, the location of 
all measures is at APSFR level.  

Table 7 

Location of measures  

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk area  

Water body level  

Other: More detailed than water body 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

While  Austria  reported  on  the  geographic  scale  of  measures  (i.e.,  as  indicated  above,  the 
location), it did not report information on the geographic coverage of the expected impacts of 

measures. 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

In  the  reporting  sheets,  the  majority  of  measures  are  categorised  as  low  priority  (8  109  or 
around 53 % of the total), followed by critical (3 483 or around 23 %), high priority (2 801 or 

around 18 %) and moderate priority (856 or around 6 %). (See Annex A, Table A3.) The low 

47 Austria subsequently informed that 2015 will serve as a baseline. A methodology will be developed for the 2 nd 

FRMP. 

48  FRMP chapter 5. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
priority  measures  are  all  "recovery  and  review"  measures,  the  other  priorities  are  evenly 
distributed among the other measure categories (preparedness, prevention and protection). 

In the national FRMP, the priority categories are different than the ones that were reported to 
the  European  Commission  through  the  reporting  sheets:  there  are  only  three  categories: 
priority 1, 2 and 349. 

No concrete methodology appears to have been used, or conveyed through the reporting, for 

setting priorities in Austria. Instead, the national FRMP describes several factors which were 
considered  for  setting  the  priorities,  but  without  explaining  in  any  detail  how  these  factors 

where weighed.  It  is  only  mentioned that the  factors were discussed and  consulted, and the 
priorities set accordingly. The factors are:  

  contribution of the measure to reach the objectives,  

  effect on risk reduction,  

  cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit,  

  general need for the measure,  

  whether it is a structural or non-structural measure,  

 

relevance for WFD implementation,  

  climate change adaptation. 

There is no different approach in setting priorities between the four types of measures50. 

Timetable 

The implementation timetable of measures in Austria is measured according to the "status" of 
the measure, ranging from "not started" to "fully implemented". As such, there are tables for 

each  measure  in  the  annex  to  the  FRMP,  stating  the  current  (year  2015)  and  future  (year 
2021) status for each measure in each APSFR where it is planned. According to this, not all 

measures  will  reach  the  "fully  implemented"  status  in  all  APSFRs  in  2021,  and  some 
measures will not change their status in this period of time.  

Also, there is no indication in the table in the FRMP regarding the priority of the measure at 
hand,  which  would  be  useful  to  assess  the  relation  between  priority  and  planned 

implementation.  Looking  at  overall  measure  aspects,  there  is  no  difference  in  the 
timetable/status  changes  between  "prevention",  "protection"  and  "preparedness"  measures, 

i.e. it cannot be stated that a certain type of measure is implemented before another. Only for 

49  FRMP chapters 5.5 (p. 35) and 5.7 (p. 171). 
50  FRMP chapters 5.5 (p.35) and 5.7 (p. 171) 

26 

 
 
                                                 
"recovery and review" measures, there is a difference, in terms that they will be implemented 
only in case of an emergency (i.e. no status information provided).  

A  timetable  was  not  reported  to  the  European  Commission  in  the  reporting  sheets  – 
consequently, Annex A  to  this document does  not  contain  an overview  of the timetable for 
Austria’s measures51. 

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

Information about the responsible authority/authorities is provided for all measures. It needs 
to be noted that measures often have more than one responsible authorities reported, with  a 

total of 30 different authorities reported. Austria reports that national and regional authorities 
(national  level  ministries  and  federal  state  administrations)  are  responsible  for  the 
implementation of the majority of measures (15 640 measures on the national level, 13 685 
measures  on  the  federal  state  level),  local/municipal  authorities  are  responsible  for  the 

implementation of 7 429 measures, owners/operators are responsible for the implementation 
of 5 083 measures, civil protection (agencies) for 4 692 measures, licensing authorities for 3 

910 measures, and water authorities as well as "others" for 1 173 measures each. Across the 
four measure types (prevention, protection, preparedness, recovery), the national and federal 

state  authorities  are  in  all  cases  responsible  for  the  highest  number  of  measures,  with  the 
exception of protection measures, where local authorities play a more significant role (5 083 

measures), also compared to other types of measures. 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

For  all  measures  reported,  the  majority  are  on-going  for  all  aspects,  considering  “progress 
ongoing” and “ongoing construction” (6 575 measures summed up, 43 % of the total). 5 757 

measures were reported as "not started" (38 %), and 2 917 measures “completed” (19 %).  

Regarding prevention measures, 1 679 out of 4 301 are completed (39 %), and 1 142 not yet 

started (26,5 %). In addition, a significant proportion of protection measures, 2 086 out of 5 
474 (38,1 %), has not yet started, as well as all recovery and review measures (which is due to 
the fact that these are only implemented in case of a flood event), (see Annex A Table A5). 

51  Austria  subsequently  informed  that  APSFR-level  programmes  of  measures  provide  indications  on  the   
timetable of measures to 2027 and beyond. Moreover, the second FRMP will collect information on the status 
of measures.  

27 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

Member  States  have  been  asked  to  report  on  other  Community  Acts  under  which  each 
measure has been implemented: Austria has reported this information in the national FRMP, 

which  refers  to  the  RBMP  under  the  WFD  (in  chapter  8  of  the  FRMP),  and  two  other 
Directives (Seveso and INSPIRE). In this chapter, synergies are described between the FRMP 
measures  M07  (NWRM/M3152  in  Annex  B  below)  and  M08  (M32  in  Annex  B53),  and  the 
objectives of the WFD. Combined national financing programs are described here as well. In 

the description of the measures (the program  of  measures),  for each measure the legislative 
background  is  described,  mostly  with  regard  to  the  Austrian  national  regulations/laws 

concerned,  for  example  covering  urban 
infrastructure, without providing any corresponding references to the EU Act.  

land  use  management,  forestry  and  road 

Aside  from  the  WFD,  the  Seveso  Directive  is  referenced  in  M13,  which  targets  rules  of 
operation  of  technical  installations,  and  in  M18,  which  handles  emergency  planning.  The 

INSPIRE-Directive  2007/2/EG  is  mentioned  in  M14,  handling  the  preparation  and 
presentation of data and information on risk to the general public. 

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

With  regard  to  spatial  planning/land  use  measures,  the  following  national  types  of 

measures are included in the national FRMP:  

  M01 and M02: Creation, actualisation and consideration of risk zoning plans/planning 

(M21 in Annex B).  

  M03:  Concepts  and  planning  for  river  basin-related  improvements  of  the  water  and 

substance balances (M24 in Annex B).  

  M04: Create and/or consider local and regional plans and planning (M21 in Annex B).  

  M06: Maximising retention effects of land-use in the basin (M31 in Annex B).  

  M07: NWRM (M31 in Annex B).  

52  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. 

53  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. 

28 

 
 
                                                 
  M10:  Investigate  and/or  conduct  relocation  and  change  of  land-use  (M22  in  Annex 

B54). 

The  framework  for  managing  construction  in  flood  prone  areas  has  evolved  since  2000, 

mainly  through  the  obligatory  consideration  of  flood  prone  areas  in  local  spatial 
planning/zoning plans; planning law, however, is managed at the level of the federal states, 

and  there  is  no  more  detailed  information  to  be  found  about  the  framework  for  managing 
construction in flood prone areas in the national FRMP. At the national level, with the update 

of  the  Water  Law  in  2011,  binding  rules  for  risk  zoning  plans  have  been  created,  and 
currently, the spatial planning and municipal building codes are being revised55. 

NWRM  have  been  planned  in  the  FRMP.  With  regard  to  NWRM,  the  following  national 
measure types are included in the national FRMP:  

  National measures type M07: NWRM (focus is on room for the river) 

NWRMs  are  ongoing  or  planned  in  96  APSFRs;  in  32  APSFRS,  NWRM  are  already 
completed;  and  in  over  200  APSFRs,  NWRM  are  foreseen  in  the  second  implementation 

cycle. 

Measures that specifically consider nature conservation are included in Austria’s national 
measure type M07 (these would be under M31 in Annex B below): Natural Water Retention 
Measures56. 

In  the  Austrian  FRMP,  measures  do  not  specifically  consider  navigation  and  port 

infrastructure. No reference has been found in the FRMP to dredging to increase the river 
channel  capacity and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation purposes57. In Austria, 
dredging for flood alleviation purposes is not specifically indicated58. 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The  role  of  insurance  policies  is  discussed  in  the  FRMP,  with  regard  to  the  recovery  from 
flooding,  preparedness/resilience  to  flood  or  other  issues.  In  the  FRMP59,  Austrian  measure 

54  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. 

55  FRMP chapter 5.6. 
56  FRMP chapter 5.6. 
57  Austria  stated subsequently that navigation, port infrastructure and dredging are implicitly incorporated into 

national measure M12, Maintenance of protection and mitigation measures, river maintenance. 

58  FRMP chapter 5. 
59  FRMP chapter 5.6. 

29 

 
 
                                                 
M21 (equivalent to EU measure type M5360) mentions the development of insurance schemes 
that  provide  better  cover,  but  without  being  specific.  Also,  the  measure  has  only  a  high 
priority after a flood event61.  

With regard to existing flood insurance for properties in all flood risk areas, and in particular 

in high flood risk areas, no information has been found on this specific detail in the FRMP. 
No  information  was  found  whether  insurance  is  conditional  on  making  risk  properties 

(domestic,  industrial)  as  flood  resilient  as  possible,  nor  if  environmental  liability  insurance 
covers  the  restoration  costs  arising  from  flooding  of  potentially  polluting  sites  and 
installations62. 

With  regard  to  estimating  restoration  costs  in  cases  where  potentially  polluting  sites  and 
installations may be flooded, ecosystem services are not considered63.  

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

There is no clear description in the Austrian FRMP of how the implementation of the planned 
measures will be monitored. In the annex to the FRMP, there are tables depicting the current 
(2015)  and  planned  future  (2021)  status,  for  each  measure  in  each  APSFR.  For  example,  a 

measure  for  the  Creation  and  actualisation  of  risk  zoning  plans/planning  in  APSFR  1021 
"Raab" has the current status "1", meaning "planning progress ongoing"; in 2021, this status 

should change to "2", meaning "planning completed". Hence, it could be monitored whether 
the  planned  changes  in  the  status  of  the  measures  are  implemented  in  2021,  though  a  clear 

commitment to do so is not specified. No baseline against which progress will be monitored 
and assessed was indicated in the FRMP64. 

The arrangements for reporting progress are not specified. Instead, the FRMP contains a very 
general  description  of  the  evaluation  of  the  FRMP,  which  refers  to  the  six-year  planning 

cycle.  It  also  states  that  a  methodology  for  evaluating  the  FRMP  is  being  developed  in  the 
first implementation cycle, along with a comprehensive data base for evaluation. The results, 

including  further  information  on  cost-benefit  relations,  will  be  available  in  2020  or  2021. 

60  Recovery and Review, Other, Other recovery and review Lessons learnt from flood events, Insurance policies. 
61  Austria  explained  subsequently  that  the  approach  is  based  on  so-called  “catastrophe  funds”,  which  would 

cover on average 40% of damages resulting from a flood event. 

62  FRMP chapter 5.6; Austria clarified subsequently that flood insurance is voluntary in Austria. 
63  FRMP chapter 5. 
64  Austria  explained  subsequently  that  the  baseline  will  be  the  status  in  2015,  the  time  of  the  first  FRMP;  

progress will be assessed against the state of implementation and against the FHRMs.  

30 

 
 
                                                 
Apart from the Competent Authority, there are no other organisations or bodies identified as 
being responsible for overseeing the monitoring65. 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  development  of  the  FRMP  has  been  coordinated  with  the 

development of the second River Basin Management Plan of the WFD. 

65  FRMP chapters 5 and 6, and Annex to the FRMP. 

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 8 

Coordination of the development of the FRMPs with the development of the 
second River Basin Management Plans of the WFD  

All UoMs assessed 

Integration of FRMP and RBMP into a single plan 

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP  

Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP  

Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD  

The objectives of the FD were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a 

Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in the FRMP  

The RBMP PoM includes win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of 
the WFD and FD, drought management and NWRM a 

Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence 
maintenance or construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and 
RBMPs  

Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included  

Consistent and compliant application of WFD Article 4(7) and designation of heavily 
modified water bodies with measures taken under the FD e.g. flood defence 
infrastructure  

The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage 
dams and tidal barriers, have been adapted to take into account for achieving WFD 
Environmental Objectives  a 

The use of sustainable drainage systems, such as the construction of wetland and 
porous pavements, have been considered to reduce urban flooding and also to 
contribute to the achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives  
Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD 

66 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The  national  FRMP67  refers  to  the  necessity  of  coordination  between  the  FRMP  and  the 
RBMP, and the obligation to foster the achievement of the WFD objectives, which can lead to 

the selection of sustainable solutions, like M07 (NWRM/included in M31 in Annex B below). 
More  specifically,  the  overlap  between  APSFRs  and  water  bodies  with  WFD  requirements, 

especially with regard to hydromorphology, has been assessed, and in particular a summary 
of  their  status  and  objectives  for  each  of  the  concerned  water  bodies  produced.  In  these 

overlapping water bodies/APSFRs, coordination is required between concerned authorities. In 

66  Austria subsequently informed that there was a joint brochure, joint event (roundtable on water), etc. to start 

the consultation process. 

67  FRMP chapter 8. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
cases of conflicts between the FD and WFD objectives, it is stated that WFD objectives must 
not be endangered and have priority over FD objectives. 

In  its  reporting  under  the  WFD,  Austria  indicated  that  the  objectives  of  the  FD  had  been 
considered in its river basin management plan. Austria also indicated that win/win measures 

in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  FD,  drought  management  and  use  of 
NWRM were included in the PoM.  

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices have been identified: 

  Austria  has  implemented  or  planned  a  great  number  of  Natural  Water  Retention 
Measures: in 96 APSFRs, NWRM are ongoing or planned; in 32 APSFRS, NWRM are 
already  completed;  and  in  over  200  APSFRs,  NWRM  are  foreseen  in  the  second 

implementation cycle.  

  Austria’s FRMP highlights coordination with the country’s RBMP and the obligation to 
foster WFD objectives, which can lead to the selection of sustainable solutions, notably 
NWRM.  Moreover,  the  overlap  between  APSFRs  and  water  bodies  with  WFD 

requirements,  especially  with  regard  to  hydromorphology,  has  been  assessed,  and  a 
summary of status and objectives for each of the concerned water bodies produced: in 

overlapping  water  bodies/APSFRs,  coordination  is  required  between  concerned 
authorities. 

The following areas for further development were identified:  

 

It is not clear how measures will contribute to the objectives, nor clear by how much, as 

there is both a lack of a baseline, as well as of indicators that would allow this (this is 
compounded  by  the  problem,  highlighted  in  section  3,  that  the  objectives  are  not 

specific and measurable).  

  The  measures  in  the  Austrian  FRMP  could  be  described  best  as  "partly  specific  and 
measurable", as it is made clear what the measures are trying to achieve, where they are 
to be achieved, and by when. The "how" is not or only partly answered68. 
It  is  also  not  clear  whether  the  objectives  will  be  achieved,  when  all  measures  are 
completed.  

 

68 In the background document “Maßnahmenkatalog”, the responsible authorities, the legal framework and the 

coordination needs are briefly stated. 

33 

 
 
                                                 
 

Information on costs and financing sources is incomplete and in many cases missing. 

  The prioritisation of the measures is not clearly described. One improvement would be 
an indication in the tables on measures and measure implementation, in the annex to the 
FRMP, regarding the priority of each.  

34 

 
 
 
 
5.   Consideration of climate change 

In  Austria,  no  measures  have  specifically  been  taken69  to  mitigate  the  expected  effects  of 
climate  change  on  the  likelihood  and  potential  adverse  consequences  of  flooding. 

Furthermore,  the  FRMP  states  that  no  specific  "factor"  with  regard  to  climate  change  and 
floods needs to be taken into account when designing measures (specifically, this refers to the 

possibility  of  a  country-wide  elevation  of  embankments  for  climate  change  reasons,  which 
option of elevation was not validated in recent Austrian studies). At the same time, the FRMP 
refers to the Austrian Climate Change Adaptation Strategy70, and states that all measures in 
the plan are in line with the recommendations taken in the Strategy. The Austrian FRMP also 

refers to research reports and predictions accompanying the  Strategy. The FRMP states that 
the  results  of  these  prognoses  are  that  the  uncertainties  regarding  extreme  events  are  very 

significant, and much stronger than the expected effects of climate change on extreme events. 
Consequently,  the  FRMP  does  not  provide  any  indication  if  or  how  climate  change  might 
affect the occurrence of extreme events and change the numerical recurrence times71. 

With  regard  to  timeframes  for  the  climate  change  scenarios  considered,  there  are  neither 

concrete scenarios presented, nor any timeframes mentioned. There is also no mention in the 
FRMP  if  it  is  expected  that  the  main  sources  of  flooding  will  change  under  the  long-term 
climate change scenarios72. 

5.1 

Specific  types  of  measures  planned  to  mitigate  expected  effects  of 
climate change 

With regard to measures to reduce pollution risk in flood prone zones, three measures in the 
Austrian FRMP explicitly mention the storage and handling of hazardous goods/commodities 

(national measure types M08, M09 and M13), but no reference is made to indicate that they 
consider climate change73. 

69  Austria  subsequently  noted  that  several  measures  within  the  FRMP  are  seen  as  win-win-  or  no-regret 
measures  according  to  climate  change  adaptation  principles.  However,  no  measures  have  specifically  been 
taken  to  mitigate  expected  effects  of  climate  change,  as  studies  contributing  to  the  Austrian  climate  change 
adaptation strategy showed that the long-time uncertainty in the estimation of flood events is larger than the 
uncertainty surrounding the effects of climate change. 

70  A reference is provided to the Strategy, but no direct hyperlink to it or its background documents/prognoses is 

provided. 

71  FRMP  chapter  9;  Austria  acknowledged  subsequently  that  further  research  is  necessary  to  close  this 

knowledge gap. 
72  FRMP chapter 9. 
73  FRMP chapters 5 and 9. 

35 

 
 
                                                 
Three non-structural measures - national measure types M03 (EU measure type M2474), M06 
and M07 (EU measure type M3175) - explicitly consider climate change in stating that a) they 
are  non-structural  and  hence  considered  no-regret,  and  b)  can  "contribute"  or  "significantly 
contribute"  to  climate  change  adaptation.  Measures  under  national  types  M06  and  M07  are 
also considered spatial planning measures76. 

Economic instruments or incentives are not mentioned in the Austrian FRMP, and it also does 

not consider climate change in the use of structural measures (M08 and M09). These are not 
regarded as no regret measures (i.e. it is not mentioned). In the FRMP, climate change is not 

cited  as  an  argument  for  more  measures  associated  with  changing/adapting  the  operational 
practices of existing flood defences or the increased dredging of rivers77. 

5.2  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following good practices were identified: 

  There  is  a  reference  to  the  Austrian  Climate  Change  Adaptation  Strategy  and  the 
respective background documents/prognoses and a good summary of their findings.  

  The  effectiveness  of  measures  for  climate  change  adaptation  was  considered  in  the 

prioritisation of the measures.  

  Non-structural  and  spatial  planning  measures  are  considered  no  regret  measures  with 

regard to climate change adaptation. 

74  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...). 

75  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. 

76  FRMP chapters 5 and 9. 
77  FRMP chapters 5 and 9. 

36 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
6. Cost-benefit analysis 

The FRMP does not use cost benefit as a criterion for the establishment of priorities for the 
selection of measures. Instead, under each measure’s description in chapter 5.6 of the FRMP, 

there  is  a  qualitative  estimation  of  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  measure.  For  example,  for 
M01:  "As  the  costs  of  this  measure  are  relatively  low,  and  the  associated  reduction  in  risk 

potentially very high, it can be assumed that the cost-effectiveness is normally very high". 

These  qualitative  estimations  of  the  cost-effectiveness  are  then  also  included  in  a  summary 

table  for  each  of  the  four  measure  categories,  in  terms  of  "very  high"  (++),  "high"  (+)  and 
"even" (~). Additionally, it is mentioned that statements regarding the cost-effectiveness/cost-

benefit  were  discussed  and  considered  for  the  prioritization  of  the  measures.  However,  no 
further information is provided. 

No  cost-benefit  assessment  of  measures  with  transnational  effects  has  been  undertaken  in 
Austria in the first implementation cycle78. 

6.1  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

cost/benefit analysis 

The following good practice was identified: 

  Cost-effectiveness  of measures is  assessed qualitatively, in  a comprehensive way,  and 
summarized  in  three  clear  categories  (very  high/high/’balanced’  i.e.  no  net  benefits 
determined in a qualitative way): these cost-effectiveness assessments are reported to be 

used as a criterion for the prioritisation of measures. 

The following area for further development was identified:  

 

It  is  not  clearly  described  how  cost-effectiveness  assessments  influenced  the 
prioritisation of the measures. 

78  Reporting sheet: Summary of Cost/benefit and FRMP. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

No information was reported on any updates to the Competent Authorities and/or the Units of 
Management identified for the FDS since 201179. 

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

The table below shows how the public and interested parties were  informed concerning the 
draft  FRMPs.  Information  on  how  the  consultation  was  actually  carried  out  and  which 

stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section: 

Table 9 

Methods used to inform the public and interested parties of the FRMPs 

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking  

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

In  Austria,  a  broad  public  information  and  consultation  strategy  was  followed  for  the 

consultation on the FRMP (including information of the public), using many means of public 
relations  channels  and  several  dialogue  platforms  for  topics  related  to  water  management: 
namely,  the  Round  Table  on  Water  and  a  platform  called  "Flussdialog"/River  Dialogue, 
which targeted a large number of stakeholders as well as the general populace. The activities 
are described as two individual measures in the national FRMP, M14 and M1580. 

The table below shows how the actual consultation was carried out: 

79  Austria recalled subsequently the reporting of an update to the CA in March 2018. 
80  FRMP 5.6 and 7. 

38 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 10 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet  

Via digital social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

Source: FRMPs 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

In order to obtain the views of stakeholders and/or members of the public about the FRMP, 

Austria  used  -  besides  the  internet  -  the  "Round  Table  on  Water"  and  "Flussdialog"/River 
Dialogue,  tools  already  in  use.  In  these  workshop-like  meetings,  the  views  of  stakeholders 

and  the  public  were  elicited  using  the  meetings  themselves  as  well  as  mailings/online 
questionnaires81. 

The table below shows how the documents for the consultation were provided: 

Table 11 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  

Direct mailing (post)  

Paper copies distributed at exhibitions  

Paper copies available in municipal buildings (town hall, library etc.)  

Source: FRMPs 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

As  well  as  using  the  Das  Wasserinformationssystem  Austria  (WISA)82  internet  platform  to 
access to all relevant documents, in each federal state, the FRMP was physically accessible at 
the "Landeshauptmann" (a regional public authority) for commenting83. 

81  FRMP chapter 7. 
82  www.wisa.bmlfuw.gv.at  
83  FRMP chapters 5.6 and 7. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

The  table  below  shows  the  groups  of  stakeholders  that  have  been  actively  involved  in  the 
development of the FRMP: 

Table 12 

Groups of stakeholders  

Civil  Protection  Authorities  such  as  Government  Departments  responsible  for 
emergency planning and coordination of response actions84 
Flood Warning / Defence Authorities 85 
Drainage Authorities  
Emergency services 86 
Water supply and sanitation  

Agriculture / farmers  

Energy / hydropower  
Navigation / ports 87 
Fisheries / aquaculture  

Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) 

NGO's including nature protection, social issues (e.g. children, housing) 

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  
Academia / Research Institutions 88 
General public (via online questionnaires) 

Source: FRMP 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

At the two main dialogue platforms - the al "Round Table on Water" and "Flussdialog"/River 
Dialogue - a large number of stakeholders as well as the general populace participated. The 

organisations listed in the table above are the ones explicitly named in the FRMP, but the list 
is not exhaustive, as the dialogues were open to any interested party. No information on the 

number of stakeholders  participating in  the meetings of the Round Table is  provided in  the 
FRMP. Some numbers are provided regarding for the Flussdialog, however: it is stated in the 

FRMP  that  around  240  stakeholders  provided  feedback  and  11  238  private  persons 

84  Austria subsequently informed that the Federal Ministry of the Interior as well as the Federal Provinces were 

involved and are the Competent Authorities for emergency management and legislation.  

85  Austria subsequently clarified that the Federal Provinces are also the Competent Authorities for flood warning 

and defence and were hence involved in the development of the FRMP.  

86  Austria  subsequently  clarified  that  emergency  services  such  as  the  fire  brigade  and  the  Red  Cross  were 

involved.  

87  Austria  subsequently  clarified  that  the  Federal  Ministry  of  Transport,  Innovation  and  Technology,  which 

handles ports and navigation, was involved in the development of the FRMP.  

88  Austria subsequently clarified that research/academia was involved in the development of the FRMP through 

tendering of pilot projects. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
participated  in  the  online  questionnaires.  It  is  not  clarified,  however,  if  the  feedback 
mentioned  is  with  regards  to  the  FD  or  the  WFD,  as  both  Directives  are  covered  by  the 
Flussdialog, and the statement is formulated in a very general way89. 

No  specific  mechanisms  for  the  active  involvement  of  stakeholders  that  go  beyond  the 

meetings  described  above,  the  provision  of  information  and  procedures  for  written 
consultation on drafts have been reported in the Austrian FRMP (chapter 7). 

7.4 

Effects of consultation 

The table below shows the effects of consultation: 

Table 13 

Effects of consultation 

Changes to selection of measures 

Adjustment to specific measures 

Addition of new information 

Changes to the methodology used 

Commitment to further research 

All UoMs assessed 

Commitment to action in the next FRMP cycle 

Comments and results of the consultation "were considered in the formulation of 
the plan" 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

It is not reported in the FRMP how the comments and results of the consultation (including 
transboundary consultations) and the environmental  assessment report (SEA) influenced the 

formulation of the plan, i.e. whether there were changes to the selection of planned measures, 
adaptations of specific measures, or of methodologies used etc. Instead, it is simply stated in 

the  FRMP  that  the  comments  and  results  of  the  consultation  "were  considered  in  the 
formulation  of  the  plan".  However,  all  received  comments  including  a  "summary  regarding 
the consideration" were published on the internet90. 

89  FRMP 5.6 and 7. 
90  FRMP chapter 7. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

The  Austrian  FRMP  has  undergone  a  SEA  procedure.  The  FRMP  does  not  provide  a 
description of the procedure followed, but does provide links to the respective EU Directive 

(2001/42/EC).  It  provides  a  hyperlink  to  the  environmental  report  (which,  however,  is  not 
working) and describes briefly the reported effects of the planned measures on the protected 

assets  (human  health  and  life,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage,  economic  activity  and 
infrastructure)91. 

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practices were identified: 

  A  broad  public  information  and  consultation  strategy  was  being  followed  for  the 

consultation on the FRMP.  

  An SEA has been carried out for the FRMP.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The concrete effects of the consultation are not summarised in the FRMP. 

91  FRMP chapter 10. 

42 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

This annex gives an overview of the data on measures provided by Austria in the reporting 
sheets. These tables and charts were used for the preparation of section 4 on measures.   

Background & method 

This document was produced as part of the assessment of the FRMPs. The tables and charts 

below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the Member States, and were used 
by the Member State assessors to complete the questions on the Flood measures. The data are 

extracted from the XMLs (reporting sheets) reported by Member States for each FRMP, and 
are split into the following sections: 

  Measures overview – Tabulates the number of measures for each UoM 

  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation 

  Measures details: name & location – Location & geographic coverage 

  Measure details: authorities – Name of responsible authority & level of responsibility 

  Measure details: objectives – Objectives, Category of priority & Timetable 

  Measure details: progress – Progress of implementation & Progress description 

  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts 

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the FD)92, not all fields are 
mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields. 

Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers – for example, 
progress  is  measured  via  the  categories  set  out  in  the  Reporting  Guidance.  This  means  that 
producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort. For many fields, however, a 

free  data  format  was  used.  For  some  Member  States,  this  resulted  in  thousands  of  different 
answers, or answers given in the national language.   

In such situations, tables and charts were developed using the following steps: 

  A  first  filter  is  applied  to  identify  how  many  different  answers  were  given.  If  a  high 
number of different answers are given, Member States assessors were asked to refer to 

the  raw  data  when  conducting  the  assessment,  and  this  annex  does  not  reflect  these 
observations; 

92  http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/schemas/dir200760ec/resources 

43 

 
 
                                                 
 

If  a  manageable  number  of  answers  are  given,  obvious  categories  are  identified,  and 
raw data sorted; 

  Measures  missing  information  may  be  assigned  categories  based  on  other  fields  (for 
example,  if  the  level  of  Responsibility  Authority  is  missing,  the  information  may  be 

obvious from the field “name of Responsible Authority”); 

  Measures  where  obvious  categories  cannot  be  defined  based  on  other  available 
information (as in the example on the name of the Responsible Authorities above), are 

categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The  following  table  93  is  used  in  the  reporting  on  the  types  of  measures.  Each  type  of 
measures is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. 

NO ACTION 

M11: No Action 

PREVENTION 

M21: Avoidance 

PREPAREDNESS 

M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning 

M42: Emergency response planning 

M43: Public Awareness 

M44: Other preparedness 

RECOVERY & REVIEW 

M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery 

M22: Removal or relocation 

M52: Environmental recovery 

M23: Reduction 

M24: Other prevention 

PROTECTION 

M31: Natural flood management 

M32: Flow regulation 

M33: Coastal and floodplain works 

M34: Surface Water Management 

M35: other protection 

M53: Other recovery  

OTHER MEASURES 

M61: Other measures 

93  Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC): 
  https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a  

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1: Number of total measures by measure aspect ............................................................ 47 
Figure A2: Share of total measures by measure aspect ................................................................ 47 
Figure A3: Visualisation of Table 3: Category of Priority by measure aspect ............................. 49 
Figure A4: Visualisation of Table 4: Category of Priority by UoM ............................................. 50 
Figure A5: Visualisation of Table 5: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ................. 52 
Figure A6: Visualisation of Table 6: Progress of implementation by UoM ................................. 52 

Table A1: Total number of measures ............................................................................................ 46 
Table A2: Number of measures per measure type and UoM........................................................ 46 
Table A3: Category of Priority by measure aspect ....................................................................... 49 
Table A4: Category of Priority by UoM ....................................................................................... 50 
Table A5: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ........................................................... 51 
Table A6: Progress of implementation by UoM ........................................................................... 52 

45 

 
 
 
Measures overview 

Table A1: Total number of measures 

Number of individual measures 

Number of individual measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Number of aggregated measures  

Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Total number of measures 

Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Range of number of measures between UoMs (Min-Max) 

Average number of measures across UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Table A2: Number of measures per measure type and UoM  

0 

0 

9 775 

15 249 

9 775 

15 249 

14 741 

7 625 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Total 

Total 

Total 

Recovery and 
review 

Other 

Total 

M21  M22  M23  M24 

M31  M32  M33  M34  M35 

M41  M42  M43  M44 

M51  M52  M53 

M61 

Grand 
Total 

AT2000 

76 

19 

57 

57 

209 

38 

76 

95 

19 

38 

266 

19 

38 

76 

19 

152 

38 

38 

38 

114 

741 

AT1000 

1488 

372  1116  1116  4092 

744 

1488  1860 

372 

744 

5 208 

372 

744 

1 488 

372 

2 976 

744 

744 

744 

2 232 

14 508 

Grand 
Total 

1564 

391  1173  1173  4301 

782 

1564  1955 

391 

782 

5 474 

391 

782 

1 564 

391 

3 128 

782 

782 

782 

2 346 

0 

15 249 

782 

196 

Average 
per UoM 
Notes: All Measures are aggregated (rather than individual). The codes used are explained in the previous section. The total includes measures 
assigned to more than one measure type.

2 737 

1 173 

1 564 

7 625 

2151 

391 

587 

587 

391 

782 

978 

196 

391 

196 

391 

782 

196 

391 

391 

0 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The information in Table A2 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: 

Figure A1: Number of total measures by measure aspect  

Notes:  All  Measures  are  aggregated  (Austria  did  not  report  individual  measures).  The  total 
includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Figure A2: Share of total measures by measure aspect   

Notes:  All  Measures  are  aggregated  (Austria  did  not  report  individual  measures).  The  total 

includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field) 

  Cost explanation (optional field) 

Information on cost was not provided for any of the measures in the reporting sheets.  

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to reported information on the following: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field) 

  Geographic coverage of the impact of measures (optional field) 

Location of measures 

Each measure reported by Austria has been designated a single ASPFR. Thus, the location of 

all measures is at APSFR level. 

Geographic coverage 

No information on the geographic coverage of expected effects was given for any measures 
in Austria in the reporting sheets. 

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Objectives linked to measures (optional field, complementary to the summary provided 

in the textual part of the XML); 

  Category  of  priority  (Conditional,  reporting  on  either  ‘category  of  priority’  or 

‘timetable’ is required); 

  Timetable  (Conditional,  reporting  on  either  ‘category  of  priority’  or  ‘timetable’  is 

required). 

Objectives 

Information  about  the  objectives  linking  to  measures  was  not  provided  about  any  of  the 
measures in the reporting sheets for Austria. 

48 

 
 
 
 
Category of priority 

Austria  provided  information  for  the  priority  of  all  measures.  The  following  categories  are 
used in the reporting sheet: 

Critical 

Grand Total 

768 

1 630 

1 085 

4 301 

5 474 

3 128 

2 346 

15 249 

  Critical 

  Very high 

  High 

  Moderate 

  Low 

Table A3: Category of Priority by measure aspect  

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Low 

2 356 

2 420 

987 

Moderate 

307 

192 

357 

High 

870 

1 232 

699 

Recovery& Review 

2 346 

Grand Total 

856 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

3 483 

2 801 

8 109 

Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A3: Category of Priority by measure aspect  

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A4: Category of Priority by UoM  

AT2000 

AT1000 

Grand Total 

Low 

526 

7 583 

8 109 

Moderate 

21 

835 

856 

High 

67 

2 734 

2 801 

Average per UoM 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

1 742 

1 401 

4 055 

428 

Critical 

Grand Total 

127 

3 356 

3 483 

741 

14 508 

15 249 

7 625 

Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A4: Category of Priority by UoM 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Timetable 

No information was provided on the timeline for measures in the reporting sheets.  

Measure details: authorities 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Name of the responsible authority 

  Level of responsibility 

Information  about  the  name  of  the  responsible  authority  was  provided  for  all  measures.  It 
needs  to  be  noted  that measures  often  had  more  than  one  responsible  authority  reported,  A 

high number of different entries were provided for this open field, so an overview table has 
not been prepared.  

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Progress  of  implementation  of  measures  (mandatory  field)  –  this  is  a  closed  question 

whose responses are analysed below 

  Progress  description  of  the  implementation  of  measures  (optional  field)  –  this  is  an 

open text question whose answers are not analysed here. 

The progress of implementation was reported as94: 

  COM (completed) 

  OGC (ongoing construction) 

  POG (progress ongoing) 

  NS (not started) 

A full definition of these terms can be found at the end of this section.  

Table A5: Progress of implementation by measure aspect  

Completed 

Ongoing 
construction 

Progress 
ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery& Review 

1 679 

624 

614 

216 

2038 

1 264 

726 

2 331 

Grand Total 

2 917 

2 254 

4 321 

1 142 

2 086 

183 

2 346 

5 757 

4 301 

5 474 

3 128 

2 346 

15 249 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

94  Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC): 
  https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure A5: Visualisation of Table A5: Progress of implementation by measure aspect  

Notes:  The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Table A6: Progress of implementation by UoM  

Completed 

Ongoing 
construction 

Progress 
ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

AT2000 

AT1000 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

130 

2 787 

2 917 

1 459 

174 

2 080 

2 254 

1 127 

190 

4 131 

4 321 

2 161 

247 

5 510 

5 757 

2 879 

741 

14 508 

15 249 

7 625 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Figure A6: Visualisation of Table A6: Progress of implementation by UoM  

Notes:  The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

The categories describing the progress of measures are defined in the EU Reporting Guidance 

Document on the FD: 

52 

 
 
 
For measures involving construction or building works (e.g. a waste water treatment plant, 
a fish pass, a river restoration project, etc.): 

  Not  started  (NS)  means  the  technical  and/or  administrative  procedures  necessary  for 

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

  Progress  on-going  (POG)  means  that  administrative  procedures  necessary  for  starting 
the  construction  or  building  works  have  started  but  are  not  finalised.  The  simple 
inclusion in the RBMPs is not considered planning in this context. 

  On-going  construction  (OGC)  means  the  construction  or  building  works  have  started 

but are not finalized. 

  Completed  (COM)  means  the  works  have  been  finalised  and  the  facilities  are 
operational (maybe only in testing period in case e.g. a waste water treatment plant). 

For measures involving advisory services (e.g. training for farmers): 

  Not  started  (NS)  means  the  advisory  services  are  not  yet  operational  and  have  not 

provided any advisory session yet. 

  Progress  on-going  (POG)  means  the  advisory  services  are  operational  and  are  being 
used. This is expected to be the situation for all multi- annual long/mid-term advisory 
services that are expected to be operational during the whole or most of RBMP cycle. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed (COM) means an advisory service that has been implemented and has been 
finalised, i.e. is no longer operational. This is expected only for advisory services that 
are relatively short term or one-off, and which duration is time limited in relation to the 
whole RBMP cycle. 

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

  Not started (NS) means the research, investigation or study has not started, i.e. contract 

has not been signed or there has not been any progress. 

  Progress  on-going  (POG)  means  the  research,  investigation  or  study  has  been 

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed  (COM)  means  the  research,  investigation  or  study  has  been  finalised  and 
has been delivered, i.e. the results or deliverables are available (report, model, etc.). 

For  measures 
instructions, etc.): 

involving  administrative  acts  (e.g. 

licenses,  permits,  regulations, 

  Not started (NS) means  the administrative file has not  been opened and  there has not 

been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

  Progress on-going (POG) means an administrative file has been opened and at least a 
first  administrative  action  has  been  taken  (e.g.  requirement  to  an  operator  to  provide 
information  to  renew  the  licensing,  request  of  a  permit  by  an  operator,  internal 
consultation of draft regulations, etc.). If the measure involves more than one file, the 
opening of one would mean already “ongoing”. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed (COM) means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license or 
permit has been issued; the regulation has been adopted, etc.). If the measure involves 
more than one administrative act, “completed” is achieved only when all of them have 

53 

 
 
been concluded. 

Measure details: other 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

  Other Community Acts associated to the measures reported (optional field) 

  Any other information reported (optional field) 

No measures have information for ‘any other information’ or for the field ‘Other Community 

Acts’ in the reporting sheets. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures95 

M11 

No Action, No measure is proposed to reduce the flood risk in the APSFR or other defined area, 

No Action 

Prevention 

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

areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation 

M22 

Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to 
relocate receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard 

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

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

M24 

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

Protection 

M31 

M32 

M33 

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. 

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. 

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

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

M35 

Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to enhance protection against flooding, which may 
include flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies 

Preparedness 

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

warning system 

M42 

M43 

M44 

Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish or 
enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning 

Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public 
awareness or preparedness for flood events 

Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to establish or enhance preparedness for flood 
events to reduce adverse consequences 

95 Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC): 
  https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Recovery & Review 

M51 

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

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

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

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

M61 

policies 

Other 

Other 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures  

NWRM cover a wide range of actions and land use types. Many different measures can act as 
NWRM,  by  encouraging  the  retention  of  water  within  a  catchment  and,  through  that, 

enhancing the natural functioning of the catchment. The catalogue developed in the NWRM 
project  represents  a  comprehensive  but  non  prescriptive  wide  range  of  measures;  other 

measures, or similar measures called by a different name, could also be classified as NWRM.  

To  ease  access  to  measures,  the  catalogue  of  measures  hereunder  is  sorted  by  the  primary 
land use in which it was implemented: Agriculture; Forest; Hydromorphology; Urban. Most 

of the measures however can be applied to more than one land use type. 

Table B2 

List of NWRM 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

A03 Crop rotation 

F02 Maintenance of 
forest cover in headwater 
areas 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U03 Permeable surfaces 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

U05 Channels and rills 

U06 Filter Strips 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A07 Low till agriculture 

A08 Green cover 

A09 Early sowing 

A10 Traditional 
terracing 

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

F08 Appropriate design 
of roads and stream 
crossings 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

F11 Urban forest parks 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 
features 

U07 Soakaways 

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation 

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches 

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

U09 Rain Gardens 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

N12 Lake restoration 

U12 Infiltration basins 

A13 Mulching 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

57