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

Table of contents ......................................................................................................................... 1 

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... 4 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5 

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 7 

Overview of the assessment ................................................................................................... 10 

Good Practices ........................................................................................................................ 13 

Areas for further development ............................................................................................... 15 

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 16 

1. 

 Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment ..................... 18 

1.1  Reporting of the FRMPs ............................................................................................. 18 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs ........................................................................................... 18 

2. 

 Integration of previously reported information ............................................................. 19 

2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment................................. 19 

2.2 

Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs ..................... 20 

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas .................................................... 22 

2.5  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration 
of previously reported information ........................................................................................ 23 

3. 

 Setting of Objectives ..................................................................................................... 25 

3.1 

Focus of objectives ...................................................................................................... 25 

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................. 26 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ............................................ 27 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding .............................. 27 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives ................................................................................ 27 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ........ 27 

4. 

 Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ................................................... 29 

4.1  Cost of measures ......................................................................................................... 29 

4.2 

Funding of measures ................................................................................................... 30 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures ............................................. 31 

4.4  Measures and objectives .............................................................................................. 32 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures ..................................................................... 32 

1 

 
 
4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ............................................................................................ 33 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ............................................ 34 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures .................................................................... 35 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ............................................................ 35 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ........................................................................................ 35 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding ................................................................... 37 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ....................................................... 37 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive .................................................... 37 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures .............. 39 

5. 

 Consideration of climate change ................................................................................... 40 

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change .............................. 40 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change .......... 40 

6. 

 Cost-benefit analysis ..................................................................................................... 41 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ...................................................... 41 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and 

7. 
consultation ............................................................................................................................... 42 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................. 42 

7.2 

Public information and consultation ........................................................................... 42 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders ........................................................................... 45 

7.4 

7.5 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................. 47 

Strategic Environmental Assessment .......................................................................... 48 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................. 48 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 49 

Background & method ........................................................................................................... 49 

Types of measures used in reporting ...................................................................................... 50 

List of Annex A tables & figures ........................................................................................... 51 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................. 52 

Measure details: cost .............................................................................................................. 55 

Measure details: name & location .......................................................................................... 56 

Measure details: objectives .................................................................................................... 56 

Measure details: authorities .................................................................................................... 58 

2 

 
 
Measure details: progress ....................................................................................................... 59 

Measure details: other ............................................................................................................ 62 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types .................................................................................... 64 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) .................................................. 65 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

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

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 

4 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

The  Floods  Directive  (FD)  (2007/60/EC)  requires  each  Member  State  (MS)  to  assess  its 
territory  for  significant  risk  from  flooding,  to  map  the  flood  extent,  identify  the  potential 
adverse  consequences  of  future  floods  for  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage 
and  economic  activity  in  these  areas,  and  to  take  adequate  and  coordinated  measures  to 
reduce this flood risk. By the end of 2011, Member States were to prepare Preliminary Flood 
Risk Assessments (PFRAs) to  identify the river basins and coastal  areas at risk of flooding 
(Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk – APSFRs). By the end of 2013, Flood Hazard & 
Risk Maps (FHRMs) were to be drawn up for such areas. On this basis, Member States were 
to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by the end of 2015.  

This  report  assesses  the  FRMPs  for  Portugal1.  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 

  Selected  FRMP:  due  to  the  high  number  of  FRMPs  prepared  in  Portugal,  the 
assessment  has  focused  on  a  selected  set  of  plans,  chosen  to  cover  a  range  of 
methodological  approaches  and  geographical  contexts.  The  FRMPs  for  Portugal’s 
mainland Units  of Management (UoMs) were expected to take  a similar approach: of 
these, three were selected, focusing on UoMs with significant historical flooding while 
also  choosing  both  international  and  national  UoMs.  The  FRMPs  for  the  autonomous 
regions  of  Azores  and  Madeira  were  expected  to  follow  different  methodologies,  and 
both were selected. On this basis, the following five FRMPs were reviewed: 

o  PTRH3  -  Douro  (part  of  a  transboundary  UoM  shared  with  Spain,  with 

historical flooding events in Portugal)  

o  PTRH4A  -  Vouga,  Mondego  and  Lis  (a  national  UoM  comprising  of 
Portugal's largest national river, with significant historical flooding events) 

2 

1   The present Member State assessment reports reflect 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 
 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. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
o  PTRH5  -  Tagus  and  West  Rivers  (a  transboundary  UoM  shared  with  Spain, 
comprising  the  largest  river  basin  within  the  Portuguese  territory  and  with 
significant historical flooding events in Portugal)  

o  PTRH9 - Azores (an autonomous region comprising of nine inhabited islands, 

with distinct hydrological and institutional characteristics) and  

o  PTRH10  -  Madeira  (an  autonomous  region  comprising  of  two  inhabited 
islands,  with  distinct  hydrological  and  institutional  characteristics  and 
significant historical flooding events).  

This selection is expected to cover all the methodological approaches employed in Portugal 
in terms of flood risks.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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)  

Portugal  is  divided  into  ten  Units  of  Management  (UoMs),  which  correspond  to  the  River 
Basin Districts (RBDs) under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). At the time of drafting 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
this report, Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) had been approved and reported for nine 
of Portugal’s ten UoMs, the exception being for the Guadiana UoM (PTRH7)3.  

The  approach  for  developing  FRMPs  was  found  to  be  similar  among  mainland  UoMs:  the 
Portuguese  Environmental  Agency  (APA)  coordinated  their  preparation  and  developed 
common methodologies and approaches for the plans. In contrast, the autonomous regions of 
Azores  (PTRH9)  and  Madeira  (PTRH10)  each  followed  their  own  methodologies.  Their 
FRMPs differ both with regard to some of the contents, and also how they are linked to prior 
steps (e.g. the Azores FRMP has been developed together with the FHRM, while Madeira’s 
FHRM  is  presented  in  a  different  manner  than  that  of  other  UoMs).  Moreover,  these  two 
regions  are  different  from  the  mainland  UoMs  (and  each  other)  in  terms  of  flood  prone 
geography, institutional organisation and management approaches. Notably, Madeira has had 
severe (and life-threatening) floods.  

All of Portugal’s FRMPs were formally adopted: the FRMPs for mainland Portugal (PTRH1 
to  PTRH8,  except  for  PTRH7),  by  a  Resolution  of  the  national  Council  of  Ministers,  no. 
51/2016  of  20  September  2016;  the  FRMP  for  PTRH9  (Azores)  by  Regional  Legislative 
Decree no. 20/2016/A of 10 October 2016; the FRMP for PTRH10 (Madeira) by Resolution 
of the Presidency of the Regional Government no. 805/2017 of 27 October 2017. 

The  table  below  gives  an  overview  of  all  UoMs  in  Portugal,  including  the  UoM  code  and 
name.  Portugal  has  uploaded  documents  to  the  European  Environment  Agency’s  (EEA) 
WISE4  indicating  that  it  has  reported  lists  of  Areas  of  Potential  Significant  Flood  Risk 
(APSFRs), which are also presented in the table below by UoM. The table below also shows 
if  all  documents  related  to  the  FRMP  were  reported  as  required  to  European  Environment 
Agency’s (EEA) WISE5 – each FRMP as a PDF and each reporting sheet as an XML. 

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Portugal 

UoM 

Name 

Number of 
APSFRs 

XML 
reported 

PDF 
Reported 

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5A 

PTRH6 

MINHO AND LIMA 

CAVADO, AVE AND LECA  

DOURO 

VOUGA, MONDEGO AND LIS 

TAGUS AND WEST RIVERS 

SADO AND MIRA 

1 

1 

3 

5 

4 

3 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

3  No APSFRs were identified for this UoM; consequently, an FRMP is not required. 
4  http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/pt/eu/floods/envv_uefa/apsfr.zip/manage_document  
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  

8 

 
 
                                                 
UoM 

PTRH7 

PTRH8 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

Name 

Number of 
APSFRs 

XML 
reported 

PDF 
Reported 

GUADIANA 

ALGARVE RIVERS 

AZORES 

MADEIRA 

0 

5 

5 

27 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web pages: 

  For all mainland FRMPs (PTRH1 to PTRH8, except PTRH7):   

https://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=16&subref=7&sub2ref=9&sub3ref=1250 

  For Azores (PTRH9):  

http://www.azores.gov.pt/Gra/srrn-
drotrh/conteudos/livres/Plano+de+Gestão+de+Riscos+de+Inundações+da+RAA.htm   

  For Madeira (PTRH10): 

https://www.madeira.gov.pt/drota/Estrutura/DROTA/ctl/Read/mid/2873/InformacaoId/
29212/UnidadeOrganicaId/14  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

FRM objectives have been 
established  

Strong evidence 

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of potential 
adverse consequences  

Strong evidence  

All five FRMPs assessed clearly establish, 
explain and prioritise their objectives. The 
FRMPs assessed for mainland Portugal and 
Madeira (PTRH10) provide a common set of 
objectives; those for Azores (PTRH9) were 
developed separately. 

The objectives in all five FRMPs assessed seek 
to reduce the potential adverse consequences 
of flooding: for example, calling for improved 
resilience and reduced vulnerability to 
flooding. 

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

No evidence  

These aspects are not specified in the definition 
of objectives in the FRMPs. 

...to non-structural 
initiatives  

Strong evidence  

All five FRMPs assessed include these aspects, 
for example calling for increased awareness, 
better spatial planning and improved flood 
knowledge and forecasting. 

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

...human health  

Strong evidence  

These aspects are specified in the FRMPs in 
their presentation of the overall aim of the 

10 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...economic activity  

Some evidence  

...environment  

Some evidence  

...cultural heritage  

Some evidence6 

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence  

...prioritised  

Strong evidence  

objectives and the plans themselves; moreover, 
the main criterion for the identification of 
APSFRs was the impact on human health. 
Consequently, these aspects were incorporated 
in the objectives even if they are not contained 
within the objectives themselves. 

Portugal has reported (for all UoMs excluding 
PTRH7) 76 individual measures, and 223 
aggregated measures: the total number of 
measures is 299. The measures cover all four 
aspects – Prevention, Protection and 
Preparedness and Recovery & Review.  

Measures have been prioritised according to 
five criteria, namely: 1. Preference to measures 
that may be financed; 2. Preference for 
practicable measures within a period 
compatible with the implementation of the 
FRMPs (between March 2016 and December 
2020); 3. Preference to measures that 
contribute to the greatest number of objectives; 
4. Preference to measures taken in areas with 
very high risk, to the detriment of high and 
medium risk; 5. Preference for prevention and 
preparedness rather than protective measures. 

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

...costs & benefits  

No evidence  

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

No cost-benefit assessment was undertaken for 
the assessed FRMP’s measures selection or 
prioritisation.7 

All FRMPs present maps from the FHRM 
stage showing the flood extent, and this 
analysis has been used to set priorities and 
identify measures. 

6  Portugal stated subsequently that for all APSFRs the impact on economic activity (agriculture, industry and 
services),  on  the  environment  (location  of  IPCC  and  Seveso  facilities  and  also  of  other  structures  like 
WWTP) and on cultural heritage was evaluated for the exposed elements. 

7  Portugal  informed  subsequently  that  during  this  first  cycle,  the  Portuguese  Environment  Agency  (APA) 
participated in the international project "Knowledge Platform for Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Flood 
Prevention  Measures".  Although  a  cost-benefit  assessment  was  not  carried  out,  an  expert  evaluation  was 
done based on experience in this area, the occurrence of more harmful events, the degree of development of 
the projects and available funds. This allowed for the definition of a hierarchy for the measures. 

11 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...flood conveyance  

No evidence  

...water retention  

Some evidence  

...environmental objectives 
of the WFD  

Strong evidence  

...spatial planning/land use   Strong evidence  

...nature conservation  

Some evidence  

No reference to conveyance routes is included 
in the FRMPs.8 

One objective for Azores (PTRH9) calls for the 
“sustainable use of soil and the improvement 
of infiltration and water retention”. While 
Portugal’s FRMPs do not identify natural 
water retention measures (NWRMs) per se, 
Portugal has reported 29 measures for natural 
flood management9, a category whose 
measures in most cases can be considered 
NWRMs.10 

All five FRMPs assessed include WFD 
objectives in their own objectives – for 
example, contributing to the improvement or 
maintenance of good water body status. The 
FRMPs moreover refer to the necessity for 
coordination between the FRMPs and RBMPs. 
The overlap between Flood Risk Areas and 
water bodies has been assessed in detail, and in 
particular a summary of the status of each 
water body is included. 

The FRMPs assessed include references to 
land use, as well as measures to improve their 
integration with territorial management tools. 
For example, the FRMPs establish a measure 
to restrict construction in flood risk areas.  

Biodiversity, nature conservation and 
environmental improvement measures are not 
directly or explicitly considered; nonetheless, 
measures linked with RBMP measures 
consider the improvement of the water body 
ecological status. 

8  Portugal  clarified  subsequently  that  although  no  explicit  reference  is  included  in  the  FRMPs,  flood 
conveyance  routes  were  identified  whenever  possible,  in  relation  to  the  proposed  measures  and  in 
accordance to the characteristics of the flood (water velocity, depth). 

9  M31 Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management (Please see Annex B for the 
full title). Measures in this category can in most cases be considered as NWRMs, though measures in some 
other  categories  may  as  well.  Measures  in  Category  M31  were  reported  for  all  UoMs  except  the  Algarve 
Rivers (PTRH8).  

10  Portugal  informed  subsequently  that  whereas  the  FRMP  did  not  identify  NWRMs,  as  a  response  to  a 
European Court of Auditors audit in November 2017 such identification was done. There are now 66 “green 
measures” for the seven mainland Plans. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

No evidence  

...likely impact of climate 
change  

No evidence  

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Some evidence  

Coordination ensured with 
WFD  

Strong evidence 

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Some evidence  

All FRMPs assessed briefly state that in the 
next cycle of planning they will take into 
consideration navigation and port 
infrastructure. 

No climate change scenarios have yet been 
considered for the development of the FRMPs. 
All FRMPs include a measure to further 
develop studies of the effects of climate change 
on flood risk. This analysis is to take place in 
the next cycle of planning. 

The FRMPs for international UoMs refer to 
coordination and exchange of information with 
Spain.  

The FRMPs refer to the need for coordination 
between the FRMPs and RBMPs, and the 
obligation to foster the achievement of the 
WFD objectives. The FRMPs moreover cross-
reference geographically flood prone areas 
with the surface water bodies that may have 
their status or objectives compromised. 

Interested parties were actively involved via 
technical meetings that were held at an early 
stage of the process to validate information, 
and public workshops were held. In one UoM, 
Azores (PTRH9) an advisory group was 
formed. 

Good Practices 

The assessment identified the following good practices in the Portuguese FRMPs assessed. 

Table 3 

Good practices in the Portuguese FRMPs 

Topic area 

Good practices identified 

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

Measures have been clearly identified, described and detailed in 
"measure sheets", using a structured format. 

The five FRMPs assessed provide estimated costs for all measures as 
well as indications of the main funding sources. 

The FRMPs assessed provide specific and measurable information on 

13 

 
 
 
Topic area 

Good practices identified 

many (though not all) of their measures; moreover, measures are 
linked to objectives (though the latter are not specific and 
measurable, and therefore the contribution of the measures to their 
achievement can’t be assessed).  

Priorities were set for all measures in the five FRMPs assessed, and 
the plans also set out the criteria used for prioritisation. 

Portugal’s FRMPs include measures to provide a national framework 
for flood insurance. 

The water bodies that can benefit from the FRMP's implementation, 
with regard to WFD objectives, were identified in most of the 
assessed FRMP's. The overlap between Flood Risk Areas (for the 100 
years return period) and water bodies has been assessed, and a 
summary of the status for each water body concerned is presented in 
the annex of each FRMP. 

Multiple mechanisms were used for informing the public about the 
consultation processes. 

Technical meetings were held at an early stage of the process to 
validate information; Public workshops were held. 

The establishment of an advisory group in one UoM was used to 
ensure the active involvement of relevant stakeholders. 

The effects of consultation on the plans are clearly detailed in 
publicly available reports. 

Public consultation  

International issues in 
flood risk management.  

There were efforts to coordinate measures (for example for dam 
management) with Spain. 

14 

 
 
 
 
Areas for further development 

The  assessment  identified  the  following  areas  for  further  development  in  the  Portuguese 
FRMPs assessed. 

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Portuguese FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

The internet links provided in the FRMPs for cartography are not 
operational (the FHRM has been moved)11.  
The FRMPs assessed make no reference to conveyance routes or their 
relevance for flooding in Portugal12. 
In  Portugal  –  which  initially  applied  Art.  13.1(b)  and  subsequently 
carried out a PFRA and reported APSFRs on this basis – flood hazard 
and  risks  from  seawater,  pluvial,  groundwater  and  artificial  water 
bearing  infrastructure  sources  were  not  considered  in  any  of  the 
UoMs assessed. 

Whereas  the  FRMPs  summarise  previous  steps,  the  FRMPs  contain 
limited information on how the FHRMs have been used to prioritise 
measures.13 

Setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk.  

The objectives are not specific or measurable. Measures and 
objectives are linked, but it is not clear whether the implementation 
of measures will lead to the achievement of the objectives. 

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

The FRMPs include mostly effort indicators and few impact 
indicators: most indicators focus on how much financial, human or 
other resources will be employed in the implementation of a certain 
measure, but are not linked to the extent that a measure helps attain a 
certain objective. Funding sources for measures are not specified in 
detail. 

Given their importance for Portugal, there is an apparent lack of 
attention to measures for ports and navigation.14 

11  Portugal subsequently informed that due to geodatabase restructuring there was a need to change the weblink 

and that the situation has meanwhile been corrected. 

12  Portugal subsequently highlighted that the flood hazard and risk maps identify the pathways affected. 
13   Portugal subsequently clarified that measures were prioritised by taking into account the risk determined in 

flood hazard maps and flood risk maps. 

14  Portugal  subsequently  recalled  that  Flood  Risk  assessment  has  been  a  priority  long  before  the  Floods 
Directive.  Thus,  multiple  flood  analysis  and  planning  of  measures  has  been  included  in  several  planning 
instruments.  On  the  basis  of  the  Floods  Directive,  efforts  are  on  course  to  articulate  these  multiple 
instruments. This is the case, for instance, of the DIW2020 Douro Inland Waterways project, which, together 
with  the  RIS  Community  Directive,  River  Information  Services  (2005/44/EC),  is  intended  to  increase  the 
safety of navigation. This project promotes the incorporation of data from the Water Resources Monitoring 
and Alert System (SVARH) into the system for alerting port activity and navigation in the Douro river. This 
action has not been included in the RH3 PGRI as it was still in preliminary phase. 

15 

 
 
                                                 
Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Use of cost-benefit 
analysis in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Climate change 

No cost-benefit assessment was undertaken for the selection or 
prioritisation of measures in the FRMPs assessed. 

The FRMPs assessed hardly considered climate change15. The 
FRMPs assessed nonetheless include a commitment to consider 
climate change impacts in the 2018 review of flood risks.  

Public consultation  

Different timeframes for public consultation between UoMs (ranging 
from 22 days to 3 months) 

International issues in 
flood risk management.  

No maps have been presented for the international UoM, including 
the flood risk areas in Spain.16 

Recommendations 

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

 

 

 

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. 

Seawater,  groundwater  and  pluvial  flooding  should  be  addressed,  if  found  significant 
during the PFRA, at the FHRM stage and reflected accordingly in the second FRMP.   

The FRMPs should explain in further detail how the FHRMs were used to prepare the 
FRMPs, including the identification and prioritisation of measures. It will be important 
to ensure that FRMPs, 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. 

15  Portugal subsequently informed that the lack of consideration of climate change scenarios was determined 
by the fact that the available methodologies were considered to require further development, in particular to 
identify  the  appropriate  scenarios  for  the  national  territory,  given  the  uncertainty  associated  with  the 
characterization of climatic scenarios and, in view of the recent changes in approach by the IPCC (change of 
scenarios  type  A1,  B1,  A2,  B23  to  Representative  Concentration  Pathways)  in  2014.  Also  taking  into 
account the non-mandatory consideration of such scenarios, the option was to include these methodologies 
in the second cycle of implementation of the FD. The necessary studies are already underway and will be 
duly considered in the second cycle, even though many uncertainties remain. 

16  Portugal  subsequently  noted  that  there  are  no  common  APSFRs  on  the  Spanish-Portuguese  border.  Spain 
identified five APSFRs along the border but, according to Portuguese analysis made for the first cycle of the 
FD,  there  was  no  need  to  define  corresponding  APSFRs  on  the  Portuguese  side,  since  these  are  sparsely 
populated areas. For the second cycle the situation will be again evaluated. In any case, there is co-operation 
on floods: Information exchange procedures are in place whenever there are intense rainfall events in shared 
basins, providing alerts as well as taking coordinated decisions regarding dam operation and other possible 
flood control. 

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
  Measures  should  be  selected  and  prioritised  considering  costs  and  benefits  whenever 

possible. 

 
 

 

Funding sources for measures should be identified more concretely. 

Greater  attention  to  potential  climate  change  impacts  in  the  second  cycle  should  be 
given.  

Similar timeframes for consultation should be provided across UoMs. 

17 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Portugal  has  reported  nine  FRMPs  for  its  ten  UoMs.  No  FRMP  was  reported  for  the 
Guadiana UoM (PTRH7).  

Portugal  did  not  make  use  of  Article  13.3  of  the  Floods  Directive,  which  allows  Member 
States  to  make  use  of  previous  flood  risk  management  plans  (provided  their  content  is 
equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive). 

Concerning the geographic coverage of the FRMPs, there is one FRMP covering each entire 
UoM.  Annexes  to  each  FRMP  play  an  integral  role,  for  example  providing  information  on 
measures. The FRMPs for mainland Portugal were prepared centrally17, following a similar 
approach;  those  for  the  Autonomous  Regions  of  Azores  and  Madeira,  were  each  prepared 
separately using different methodological approaches. 

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

In Portugal there is a difference between the FRMPs prepared for UoMs on the mainland, and 
the  autonomous  regions.  The  Portuguese  Environmental  Agency  (APA)  coordinated  the 
preparation  of  the  FRMPs  for  the  mainland  UoMs  and  developed  common  methodologies 
and  approaches  for  the  plans.  In  contrast,  the  autonomous  regions  of  Azores  (PTRH9)  and 
Madeira (PTRH10) each followed their own methodologies. 

Table 5 

Overview of UoMs within mainland Portugal 

UoM code 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5A 

UoM Name 

DOURO 

VOUGA, MONDEGO AND LIS 

TAGUS AND WEST RIVERS 

Table 6 

Overview of UoMs for autonomous regions in Portugal 

UoM code 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

UoM Name 

AZORES 

MADEIRA 

17  Portugal  informed  subsequently  that  whereas  the  structure  of  the  plans  had  been  harmonised  at  national 
level, regional specificities have been taken into account. The regional departments of the APA established 
the contact with the city councils and the stakeholders of each RBD. 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

As  stated  in  the  FRMPs,  Portugal  initially  applied  Art.  13.1(b).  Nonetheless,  Portugal 
subsequently carried out a PFRA and reported APSFRs on this basis - a total of 54 APSFRs, 
of which 22 in mainland Portugal (PTRH1 to 8)18, five in Azores (PTRH9) and 27 in Madeira 
(PTRH10). 

The  APSFRs  were  identified19  based  on  the  analysis  of  information  collected  by  national, 
regional and local bodies. They are presented in a database in the National Water Resources 
Information System (SNIRH - http://snirh.pt). The information used to identify the APSFRs 
included  studies,  reports  and  articles  on  floods,  hydraulic  projects,  the  River  Basin 
Management Plans, flood reports and hydrometric data (continuous records and flood marks). 
The  data  include  flood  occurrences  in  the  19th,  20th  and  21th  centuries  and  information  on 
their  consequences  (hydrological  information  and  quantitative  or  qualitative  consequences’ 
assessment).  Among  the  criteria  used  for  the  identification  of  the  APSFRs  were  the 
identification  of  loss  of  human  lives  and  the  number  of  people  affected20.  The  information 
used  was  also  cross-referenced  with  information  from  a  database  of  natural  disasters  of 
hydro-geomorphological  origin  for  validation.  The  designated  APSFRs  are  all  affected  by 
river floods. 

The conclusions of the PRFA are presented in the FRMP for all five FRMPs assessed. This 
includes  a  summary  map  showing  areas  of  potential  significant  flood  risk  (APSFRs).  All 
FRMPs assessed also had a summary text, integrating previous information from the PFRAs. 
For  the  three  mainland  FRMPs  assessed  (Douro,  PTRH3;  Vouga,  Mondego  and  Lis, 
PTRH4A; and Tagus and West Rivers, PTRH5A), this information is presented in Part 2 of 
the  FRMPs,  where  the  methodology  and  the  results  of  previous  steps  are  reviewed.  These 
three  FRMPs  provide  a  link  to  an  online  map  of  the  APSFRs:  but  during  the  assessment 
period the link was not functional21.  

18  APSFRs were identified in all UoMs except PTRH7, Guadiana. 
19  Based  on  information  available  on  the  APSFRs'  metadata  on  the  National  System  of  Environmental 

Information 
(SNIAmb):(https://sniambgeoportal.apambiente.pt/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7
B342E0B32-6856-4D93-9AC3-2D636A14BB25%7D) 

  An  overview  is  available  in:  European  Commission,  Assessment  of  data  and  information  reported  by 
Member  States  on  their  Preliminary  Flood  Risk  Assessments  and  identification  of  Areas  of  Potentially 
Significant Flood Risk under the Floods Directive: Member State Report: Portugal, 2015. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/PFRA%20Report%20-%20PT.pdf 

20  Among the criteria was at least one person missing or dead and at least fifteen persons affected (evacuated or 

displaced). 

21  For the mainland FRMPs, a map of the APSFRs can be found at the following link: 

19 

 
 
                                                 
 
The  Azores  FRMP  (PTRH9)  describes  the  steps  leading  to  establishment  of  the  APSFRS, 
links  to  maps  for  each  island  are  provided  in  the  FRMP  Annex  422.  The  Madeira  FRMP 
presents the establishment of the PFRAs done in 201323 and also includes links to the maps, 
but these no longer worked at the time of the assessment24. 

No reference to an analysis of conveyance routes is included in the FRMPs.  

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

The Douro (PTRH3) and Tagus and West Rivers (PTRH5A) are transboundary UoMs shared 
with  Spain. Both FRMPs indicate that there is coordination and information exchange with 
Spain,  which  is  carried  out  under  the  Albufeira  Convention25.  The  FRMP  for  PTRH5A 
indicates that one APSFR wholly in Portugal depends on the coordination of upstream dam 
management with Spain26.  

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

The mainland FRMPs assessed (PTRH3, PTRH4A and PTRH5A) explain that the elaboration 
of the FHR maps was based on the PFRA and, through modelling (using MOHID modelling 
system), the FHRM stage assessed the identified areas in more detail. In the FRMPs of the 
Azores  (PTHRH9)  and  Madeira  (PTRH10),  the  link  between  the  PFRA  and  the  FHRMs  is 
not  clearly  described,  though  for  the  Azores,  the  development  of  the  FRMP  included 
preparation of the FHR map.  

2.2 

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

Flood hazard and flood risk maps have been presented in the five FRMPs assessed: all five 
FRMPs  present  a  graphical  and  tabular  analysis  of  the  FRM  and  provide  the  FRMs  in 

https://sniamb.apambiente.pt/content/inunda%C3%A7%C3%B5es-diretiva-200760ce?language=pt-pt  
22  Flores: http://sig-sraa.azores.gov.pt/SIG/(S(lq4cou454fh4k1zjnbgdhsnw))/MapViewer/Viewer.aspx?id=74 
  Terceira: http://sig-sraa.azores.gov.pt/SIG/(S(jdyjuu55l41fze45wvqnxh55))/MapViewer/Viewer.aspx?id=75 

São Miguel: 
http://sig-sraa.azores.gov.pt/SIG/(S(jx1zl5ugmgiqow55rsics3f1))/MapViewer/Viewer.aspx?id=76  

23  Implementação da Diretiva nº 2007/60/CE, de 23 de outubro, transposta pelo Decreto-Lei n.º 115/2010, de 
22  de  outubro  (Diretiva  sobre  a  Avaliação  e  Gestão  dos  Riscos  de  Inundações)  na  Região  Autónoma  da 
Madeira 

24  PTRH3  /PTRH4A  /  PTRH5A:  https://sniamb.apambiente.pt/Diretiva60CE2007  (as  found  in  the  FRMPs  p. 
38/39).  PTRH10:  http://sniamb.apambiente.pt/D200760CE_MD/  (as  found  in  FRMP  Annex  1).  A  map  of 
APSFRs in PTRH10 was available (May 2018) at: 
https://sniamb.apambiente.pt/content/inunda%C3%A7%C3%B5es-diretiva-200760ce-r-da-madeira  

25  The  Convention  on  Cooperation  for  the  Protection  and  Sustainable  Utilization  of  Waters  of  the  Luso-

Spanish Hydrographic Basins. 

26  FRMP PTRH3 (p. 29); FRMP PTRH5A (p. 67). 

20 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
 
annexes27. The maps only show fluvial flooding. Floods from seawater, pluvial, groundwater 
and  artificial  water  bearing  infrastructure  sources  have  not  been  identified  in  the  UoMs 
analysed. The FHRMs do not include references to these flood sources, and indicate that they 
will be studied further in the coming cycle. None of these sources had been identified in the 
previous FHRM phase. The FHRMs do not show risks with no specific sources identified or 
the combined effects of more than one source of flooding. 

Internet links28 to the flood hazard and flood risk maps have been provided in the FRMPs in 
some but not all FRMPs assessed. Specifically: 

  For the mainland FRMPs assessed (PTRH3 /PTRH4A / PTRH5A)29: 

https://sniamb.apambiente.pt/Diretiva60CE2007;  

  For Madeira (PTRH10)30: http://sniamb.apambiente.pt/D200760CE_MD/  
  For Azores (PTRH9), maps for each island31:  

Flores: http://sig-
sraa.azores.gov.pt/SIG/(S(lq4cou454fh4k1zjnbgdhsnw))/MapViewer/Viewer.aspx?id
=74 

o  Terceira: http://sig-

sraa.azores.gov.pt/SIG/(S(jdyjuu55l41fze45wvqnxh55))/MapViewer/Viewer.aspx?id
=75 

o  São Miguel: http://sig-

sraa.azores.gov.pt/SIG/(S(jx1zl5ugmgiqow55rsics3f1))/MapViewer/Viewer.aspx?id=
76 

The links for PTRH3, PTRH4A, PTRH5A do not appear to be working, but the FHRMs can 
be found at https://sniamb.apambiente.pt/content/inunda%C3%A7%C3%B5es-diretiva-
200760ce?language=pt-pt.     

The links for PTRH10 do not appear to be working, but the FHRMs can be found at: 
https://sniamb.apambiente.pt/content/inunda%C3%A7%C3%B5es-diretiva-200760ce-r-da-
madeira  

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

27  PTRH3 Annex 10 (p.120); PTRH4A Annex 10  (p.120), PTRH5A  Annex 10  (p.122), PTRH9 Annex 7 (p. 

75), PTRH10 Annex I (detached document). 

28   Portugal informed subsequently that problems with inaccessible internet links have been resolved. 
29  FRMPs p. 38/39. 
30  FRMP Annex I. 
31  Provided in Annex 4. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
Portugal does not share any flood risk areas with other Member States (i.e. with neighbouring 
Spain). 

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

In  all  the  FRMPs,  Flood  hazard  and  risk  maps  (FHRMs)  have  been  used  to  develop  the 
FRMPs. Based on the reporting sheets and the FRMPs assessed: 

  FHRMs are used to set priorities for flood risk management (e.g. locations, economic 

activities, assets); 

  FHRMs are used as a tool in the public participation process; 

  Measure types and locations have been defined based on the FHRM. 

In general, all FRMPs include a standard text regarding the relevance of the FHRM work and 
its results for the definition of the FRMP. In four of the FRMPs assessed - PTRH3, PTRH4A, 
PTRH5A32,  PTRH1033  –  it  is  clearly  stated  that  the  FHRMs  have  been  used  to  define  and 
prioritise flood risk measures and their type (although it is not clear how the maps inspired 
the  definition  of  objectives)34.  The  measures  were  devised  and  prioritised  considering  the 
damages  identified  in  the  FHRMs,  and  in  particular  addressing  the  significance  of:  human 
lives at jeopardy, potential damage to the environment, potential damage to infrastructure and 
potential  damage  to  hazardous  industry.  Three  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  mention  that  the 
FHRM was discussed with relevant stakeholders in preliminary meetings for the FRMPs (for 
PTRH3,  PTRH4A  and  PTRH5A).  However,  none  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  indicate  that 
objectives were developed based on the FHRM.  

For the FRMP for Madeira (PTRH10), the FHRM was developed along with the FRMP35.  

2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas  

The  FRMP  assessment  looked  for  information  on  changes  in  the  identification  of  APSFRs 
since December 2011 or in the FHRMs since December 2013 indicated in the FRMP. None 
of the five FRMPs assessed provide information regarding possible changes due to increased 
information, knowledge and understanding.  

32  For PTRH3, PTRH4A and PTRH5A the information was found on chapter 1.5 of the respective FRMPs (p. 

35). 

33  For PTRH10 the information was found on chapter 1.4 (p. 13).  
34  Portugal subsequently confirmed that this methodology was used for all FRMPs in the mainland. 
35  Portugal subsequently informed that the FRMP for Azores (PTRH9) and  Madeira (PTRH10) followed the 

same methodology as those on the mainland. 

22 

 
 
                                                 
Four  of  the  five  FRMPs  do  not  indicate  changes  to  the  FHRMs,  either.  In  contrast,  for  the 
Madeira (PTRH10), the FHRM was developed along with the FRMP.  

2.4 

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

The FHRM assessment36 identified the following area for further development for Portugal: 

  According  to  Art  (6)(1)  MSs  shall  prepare  FHRMs  for  the  areas  identified  under  Art 
(5)(1)  (APSFRs,  Areas  of  Potential  Significant  Flood  Risks).  Portugal’s  geoportal 
identifies 27 APSFRs in Madeira, but the map was only reported in 2017. 

  Climate change was not considered. 

  Other potential sources of flooding, such as tsunamis, are not addressed in the maps. 

None  of  these  areas  for  further  development  are  explicitly  addressed  within  the  FRMPs 
assessed or the reporting sheets in the time period between publication of the FHRMs and the 
assessment of the FRMPs. Nonetheless, based on the information available: 

  FHRMs are now available for Portugal’s APSFRs. 

  The FRMPs indicate that climate will be addressed in the second cycle. 

  No information is found on tsunamis, and it does not appear that they were included in 

the FHRMs. 

Consequently,  the  first  area  for  further  development  has  been  addressed,  but  not  the  other 
two.  In  addition,  it  can  be  noted  that  the  FHRMs  do  not  consider  flooding  from  seawater, 
pluvial,  groundwater  and  artificial  water  bearing  infrastructure  sources  in  any  of  the  UoMs 
assessed.  

2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  The  FRMPs  assessed  make  no  reference  to  conveyance  routes  or  their  relevance  for 

flooding in Portugal. 

36  European  Commission,  Assessment  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps  –  Member  State  Report: PT  – 

Portugal, February 2015. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/PT%20FHRM%20Report.pdf  

23 

 
 
                                                 
 
  Flood hazard and risks from seawater, pluvial, groundwater and artificial water bearing 
infrastructure  sources  were  not  considered  in  the  first  cycle  in  any  of  the  UoMs 
assessed.37 

  The  FRMPs  contain  limited  information  on  how  the  FHRMs  have  been  used  to 

prioritise measures. 

  The internet links provided in the FRMPs for cartography were not operational at the 

time of the assessment (the FHRM has been moved).  

37  Portugal  informed  subsequently  that  the  identification  of  APSFRs  was  based  on  the  application  of  the 
criterion  “at  least  one  person  missing  or  dead”  and  “at  least  15  persons  affected”,  i.e.  evacuated  or  made 
homeless.  This  criterion  appears  to  be  not  applicable  to  the  coastal  area.  However,  since  there  is  risk 
awareness,  this  matter  has  been  duly  considered:  Taking  precautionary  measures  in  the  Coastline 
Management  Plans  (adopted  between  1998  and  2005)  and  the  associated  regime;  and  in  the  risk 
minimisation  and  prevention  action  taken  under  the  Action  Plan  for  Protecting  and  Enhancing  the  Coast 
(2007-2013 and 2012-2015). Therefore, Portugal considers, even though applying the APSFR identification 
criterion meant that no APSFRs were allocated in coastal areas, it is not believed that the non-allocating of 
APSFRs prevented measures and actions from being taken to protect coastal areas from coastal overtopping 
and coastal erosion. 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.   Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

The  FRMPs  state  that  the  overall  aim  is  to  protect  human  health,  economic  activity,  the 
environment  and  cultural  heritage  (these  aspects,  however,  are  not  specified  within  the 
objectives themselves).  

Four  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  –  for  the  Douro  (PTRH3),  Vouga,  Mondego  and  Lis 
(PTRH4A),  Tagus  and  West  Rivers  (PTRH5A)  and  Madeira  (PTHRH10)  –  set  out  the 
following strategic objectives:  

1.  Increase  the  awareness  of  flood  risks  and  the  action  strategies  by  the  population  and 

social and economic actors;  

2.  Improve knowledge and forecasting for adequate flood risk management;  
3.  Improve spatial planning and risk exposure management in flood areas;  
4.  Improve resilience and reduce vulnerability in areas of possible flooding;  
5.  Contribute to the improvement or maintenance of the water bodies' good status.  

The  FRMPs  assessed  also  set  more  detailed  operational  objectives.  For  example,  under  the 
first strategic objective on awareness there are four operational objectives:  

1.1. Raise  citizens'  awareness  of  the  risks  associated  with  flooding  by  advising  on  safety 

procedures and appropriate behaviour in case of an extreme event 

1.2. Articulate with local authorities the procedures for reducing exposure to the threat 
1.3. Disseminate information on risks associated with different return periods in the critical 

areas identified  

1.4. Ensure the operation of monitoring networks  

On the other hand, the FRMP for Azores (PTRH9) sets out the following strategic objectives:  

1.  Establish measures and actions to minimise the likelihood of flooding and the potential 

consequences;  

2.  Evaluate the possibility of the installation of a monitoring, forecast and alert system for 

extreme hydrological situations;  

3.  Promote practices for the sustainable use of soil and the improvement of infiltration and 

water retention;  

4.  Identify areas to be classified as threatened by floods;  
5.  Establish information and awareness mechanisms for flood risks;  

25 

 
 
6.  Promote  coordination  with  the  River  Basin  Management  Plan  of  the  Azores  River 

Basin District and other regional planning instruments;  

7.  Assess  cost-effectiveness  of  proposed  measures  and  actions  and  designate 

responsibilities for their implementation;  

8.  Identify financing mechanisms for the measures' implementation;  
9.  Design a program to monitor and control implementation. 

The  FRMP  for  the  Azores  does  not  have  operational  objectives  but  it  provides  a  set  of 
“orientation  guidelines”  for  the  strategic  objectives.  As  examples,  the  first  two  orientation 
guidelines are to:  

  Ensure strategic articulation with land planning, water resources, emergency and other 

relevant regional planning instruments. 

  Ensure the protection of the population, economic activities, natural and built heritage 

and the environment in the face of flood events 

On this basis, it can be said that in all FRMPs assessed38: 

  The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods  

  The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented  
  The objectives refer to non-structural measures39  

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

In Portugal, objectives are neither specific nor measurable. The strategic objectives included 
in the FRMPs are non-specific with regard to what they are trying to achieve (this is neither 
quantitative  or  measurable),  nor  where  they  are  to  be  achieved,  nor  by  when  they  are 
expected to be achieved. This is also the case for the operational objectives.  

There  is  some  information  available  on  how  the  objectives  are  to  be  achieved,  as  the 
measures are formulated based on the strategic and operational objectives. The measures are 
devised considering the following aspects: 

(a)  for  the  exposed  elements  (i.e.  population,  economic  activities,  cultural  sites  and 
protected environmental areas), to address the potential harmful consequences; 

38  These categories are included in Art. 7 of the Floods Directive. 
39  Non-structural  measures  include  measures  such  as  flood  forecasting  and  raising  awareness  of  flooding  as 

well as land use planning, economic instruments and insurance. 

26 

 
 
                                                 
b) to be undertaken in geographical areas where several exposed elements are or may 
be located; 

c) to reduce the severity of flooding in the APSFRs. 

In  all  FRMPs  assessed,  indicators  are  associated  with  measures  and  measures  relate  to  the 
objectives, but no indicators are identified for the objectives themselves.  

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

In the FRMPs assessed, the objectives seek to reduce adverse consequences from floods, for 
example by improving resilience and reducing vulnerability. They do not, however, provide 
further specification of the type of adverse consequences that will be reduced. As mentioned 
previously, the objectives are rather general and do not specify the targets to be achieved. As 
noted above, indicators are associated with measures, but they are not associated directly with 
the objectives. 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

Reduction of the likelihood of flooding is not specified in the objectives. Nonetheless, one of 
the  strategic  objectives  for  the  mainland  FRMPs  assessed  and  for  Madeira  includes  risk 
exposure management; risk is understood to include the likelihood of flooding40. 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

The FRMPs for the mainland UoMs assessed  – Douro (PTRH3), Vouga, Mondego and Lis 
(PTRH4A),  and  Tagus  and  West  Rivers  (PTRH5A)  –  were  produced  by  the  Portuguese 
Environment Agency (APA), resulting in common strategic objectives. The APA coordinated 
with  the  National  System  for  Civil  Protection  in  the  development  of  the  objectives. 
Coordination between national authorities and Madeira’s regional authorities (PTRH10) led 
to this FRMP following the same set of strategic objectives. The development of the FRMP 
for  Azores  (PTRH9)  included  some  coordination  efforts  with  national  authorities,  but  its 
objectives  were  established  in  accordance  with  the  strategic  objectives  set  out  in  the  Flood 
Directive’s transcription into regional law and are thus different from the other UoMs. 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following area for further development was identified: 

40  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. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
  The objectives are not specific or measurable and do not specify achievable targets. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
4.   Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Portugal  has  reported  measures  for  nine  of  its  ten  UoMs41.  The  number  of  individual 
measures reported is 76, and the number of aggregated42 measures is 223, resulting in a total 
of  299  measures43.  (Neither  the  FRMPs  nor  Portugal’s  reporting  sheets  explain  how 
individual and aggregated measures are defined). The average number of measures per UoM 
is 33, with a range between 22 and 50 measures per UoM.  

The measures reported cover all four aspects44 (and no “other” measures are included): there 
are 51 prevention measures out of the 299 total measures (17 %); 93 protection measures (31 
%); 110 preparedness measures (37 %) and 45 recovery and review measures (15 %).  

Please see the tables and charts in Annex A for further detail on the measures. 

4.1 

Cost of measures 

Table 7 

Estimated overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMPs 

UoM code 

Estimated overall budget of planned measures (2015-2021) in EUR 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5A 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

6.8 million 

86.2 million 

70.4 million 

5 million 

7.2 million 

Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs 

Cost estimates for the measures are available in the five FRMPs assessed (Portugal did not 
provide  this  information  in  its  reporting  sheets,  however).  The  expected  budget  for 
implementing the measures is very different among the five UoMs, ranging from EUR 5 m in 
the Azores (PTRH9) to EUR 86.2 m in the Vouga, Mondego and Lis UoM (PTRH4a).  

41  No information is reported for Guadiana, PTRH7. 
42  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. 

43  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. 

44  See Annex B for the list of measure aspects and measure types. 

29 

 
 
                                                 
The  distribution  of  costs  amongst  the  four  aspects  is  also  very  different  among  the  UoMs, 
with prevention ranging from 0-53 %, protection from 35-99 %, preparedness from 27-68 % 
and recovery from 0-28 % of the total FRMP budget for the UoMs. Four of the five FRMPs 
assessed present an overall cost forecast or budget, whilst Madeira (PTRH10) only presents 
these for the separate measures and does not provide an overview.  

  The FRMP for the Douro UoM (PTRH3) provides the following budget distribution45: 
prevention measures, 53 % of the total; protection measures, 42 %; preparedness, 4 %; 
and recovery, 1 %.  

  The FRMP for the Vouga, Mondego and Lis (PTRH4A) includes the following 

proportional distribution of the total budget46: prevention 0.45 %, protection 98.6 %, 
and preparedness 0.82 % and recovery 0.07 %.  

  According  to  FRMP  for  the  Tagus  and  West  Rivers  (PTRH5A)47  the  distribution  is: 

prevention 1 %, protection 97.5 %, preparedness 1.4 % and recovery 0.1 %.  

  According  to  Madeira  FRMP  (PTRH10)48  the  distribution  is:  prevention  11  %, 

 

protection 35 %, preparedness 27 % and recovery 28 %.  
In the Azores FRMP (PTRH9)49: prevention 7 %, protection 68 %, preparedness 10 %, 
and recovery 14 %. 

The FRMPs assessed do not describe in detail the cost elements which are considered (e.g. if 
operational costs are included along with investment costs). It should be noted that costs are 
not provided for measures which are already being carried out by authorities in the frame of 
existing flood-related policies. On the other hand, several measures already being carried out 
were re-evaluated within the FRMPs. 

4.2 

Funding of measures 

All the FRMPs assessed explain that most of the budgets will be covered by the national and 
regional  competent  and  cooperating  authorities,  which  will  draw  in  large  part  on  EU  funds 
(structural and cohesion funds, agricultural and fisheries funds or social funds, according to 
the partnership agreement and its priorities).  Some  of the measures, including those carried 
out  under  existing  policies,  do  not  require  additional  budget50.  There  is  no  reference  to  the 
involvement of local authorities or private investment. 

45  page 75 of the FRMP. 
46  page 77 of the FRMP. 
47  page 80 of the FRMP. 
48  page 39 of the FRMP. 
49  Annex II to the FRMP. 
50  PTRH3  FRMP  (p.  75),  PTRH4A  FRMP  (p.  77),  PTHRH5A  FRMP  (p.  80),  PTRH9  FRMP  (p.  95), 

PTHRH10 FRMP (p. 39). 

30 

 
 
                                                 
Table 8 

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)  

Private investment  

EU funds (generic)  

EU Structural funds  

EU Solidarity Fund  

EU Cohesion funds  

EU CAP funds  

International funds  
European Social Fund51 

PTRH3  PTRH4A  PTRH5A  PTRH9  PTRH10 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

All five FRMPs assessed include a clear and explicit description of almost all measures with 
regard to:  

  What they are trying to achieve, 

  Where they are to be achieved, 

  How they are to be achieved, and 

  By when they are expected to be achieved. 

In  general,  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  include  information  on  measures,  referring  to:  their 
location  (either  the  whole  UoM  or  other  more  detailed  locations),  the  implementation 
timeframe,  the  budget,  the  responsible  entity  and  indicators  for  management.  However,  not 
all the information is provided for all measures. There are gaps regarding costs for measures 
already being carried out by the authorities in the frame of existing flood-related policies. For 
some measures, the description is brief (examples include: “development and implementation 
of the river conservation programmes”, “legislative proposals”, “good practice manuals”). In 
all the FRMPs assessed (and in all Portuguese FRMPs, it appears), measures are presented in 
a standard annex table providing  key information  such  as  the responsible administration(s), 
timetable  for  implementation  (start  and  end),  budget  allocation,  location/geographic  scope, 
objectives  to  which  it  contributes,  legal  framework,  execution  indicators,  priority  and 

51  European  Social  Fund.  Mac  2014-2020  (Operational  Programme  for  Territorial  Cooperation  Between 
Madeira, Azores and Canarias). Intervir+ (Operational Program for Valorisation of the Economic Potential 
and Territorial Cohesion of the Autonomous Region of Madeira).  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
exposed  elements  (i.e.  population,  economic  activities,  cultural  sites  and  protected 
environmental areas). 

Almost all measures are specific and measurable. The measures indicate one of two levels of 
location: RBD/UoM, or APSFR/other specific risk area. There are no significant differences 
between the assessed UoMs regarding the level of specificity of the measures52. 

The following table lists all the locations indicated for Portugal’s measures: 

Table 9 

Location of measures  

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk area  

Water body level  

More detailed than water body 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A  PTRH5A 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

4.4  Measures and objectives 

Across all five FRMPs assessed, it is clear which measures will contribute to the achievement 
of which objectives; however, it is not clear by how much they will contribute. It is also not 
clear whether the objectives will be achieved when all measures are completed. The annexed 
tables  on  measures  include  a  box  describing  which  strategic  and  operational  objective  each 
measure aims to tackle, thus giving an overall insight into how objectives are to be met: as 
noted  in  section  2,  the  objectives  are  not  specific  or  measurable;  moreover,  although  the 
measures  are  connected  to  the  objectives,  the  indicators  for  the  measures  do  not  have 
quantified targets to be achieved and thus do not show how much the measures can contribute 
to the fulfilment of objectives.  

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

For all nine UoMs reported, nearly 50 different locations were listed in the reporting sheets 
and it has not been possible to aggregate this information.  

The  five  FRMPs  assessed  identify  the  UoM  or  the  APSFR  in  which  the  measures  shall  be 
implemented. 

52  PTRH9 FRMP (Annex 2), PTRH3, PTRH4A, PTRH5A FRMP (Annex 13), PTRH10 FRMP (Annex 9). 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

Portugal has indicated the priority for the 299 measures reported. Of these, only six measures 
(2 % of the total) were identified as critical. A total of 97 measures were assigned very high 
priority (32 % of the total), while 135 measures have high priority (45 %), 45 have moderate 
priority (18 %) and seven measures have low priority (2 %).  

Preparedness  measures  make  up  the  majority  of  all  measures  reported  (there  are  110 
preparedness  measures  across  all  nine  UoMs);  although  no  preparedness  measures  were 
reported  as  critical,  the  great  majority  –  75  %  -  were  reported  as  very  high  priority.  For 
prevention  measures,  the  great  majority  –  84  %  -  are  of  high  priority.  For  protection 
measures, 52 % are of high priority and 29 % of moderate priority. 

Among  the  six  critical  measures,  three  are  for  recovery  and  review,  two  for  protection  and 
one for prevention.  

The breakdown in priority is broadly similar across four of the five UoMs assessed, with the 
largest  share  of  measures  indicated  as  very  high  and  high  priority.  In  Madeira  (PTRH10), 
however,  the  majority  of  measures  are  of  high  priority.  Moreover,  all  six  measures  with 
critical priority are identified in this UoM. 

In detail: 

  Douro (PTRH3) – 14 measures have very high priority (41 %), 15 high priority (44 %), 

five moderate priority (14.7 %);  

  Vouga, Mondego and Lis (PTRH4A) - 19 measures very high priority (38 %), 22 high 

priority (44 %), seven moderate priority (14 %), two low priority (4 %); 

  Tagus  and  West  Rivers  (PTRH5A)  -  18  measures  have  very  high  priority  (44  %), 15 
high priority (36.6 %), five moderate priority (12.2 %), three low priority (7.3 %);  

  Azores (PTRH9) – 11 measures have high priority (39 %), 16 moderate priority (57 %), 

one low priority (3.6 %);  

  Madeira  (PTRH10)  –  six  measures  have  critical  priority  (13    %),  three  very  high 

priority (6.5 %), 26 high priority (56.5 %), 11 moderate priority (23.9 %).  

Four  of  the  five  FRMPs  -  PTHRH3,  PTHRH4A,  PTHRH5A,  PTHRH10  –  provide 
information on a common approach for prioritisation. This has followed five criteria:  

1.  Preference to measures that may be financed53;  

53  The FRMPs do not specify, however, how this was determined. 

33 

 
 
                                                 
2.  Preference 

for  practicable  measures  within  a  period  compatible  with 

the 

implementation of the FRMPs (between March 2016 and December 2020);  
3.  Preference to measures that contribute to the greatest number of objectives;  
4.  Preference to measures taken in areas of very high risk, over those areas where the risk 

is high/medium;  

5.  Preference for prevention and preparedness rather than protection measures.  

With regard to the last criterion, when looking at all of Portugal’s measures, prevention and 
preparedness  measures  indeed  are  assigned  higher  priority  than  protection  measures:  the 
distinction is clearest for prevention measures (see above and Table A5 in Annex A). In terms 
of  costs,  however,  in  four  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  protection  measures  receive  the 
highest share. 

The  FRMP  for  Azores  (PTRH9)  does  not  provide  any  information  related  to  prioritisation, 
either in terms of criteria to be employed or results.  

The timetable for the implementation of the measures is provided within the FRMPs. All the 
measures will be implemented in the 2016-2021 period, with a target to be achieved by 2021. 
The majority of measures refers to six years of implementation. In the five FRMPs assessed, 
there is a direct relationship between the timetable and the priority of a measure, as this is one 
of the prioritisation criteria (see above). The timetable for each measure is split per year and 
presents how much budget is to be spent each year for each measure.  

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

Regarding the level of responsibility for the reported measures, national authorities, regional 
authorities  and  the  local/municipal  authorities  are  reported  as  being  responsible  for  the 
implementation  of  measures.  In  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  annexed  tables  on  measures 
include  a  field  for  the  responsible  authorities;  for  many  measures,  there  are  overlapping 
responsibilities and authorities. Nevertheless, the national authorities are responsible for the 
highest  number  of  measures  for  the  mainland  Portugal  FRMPs  assessed,  particularly  those 
measures with large budgets; the regional authorities are responsible for the highest numbers 
of measures for the Azores (PTRH9) and Madeira (PTRH10) FRMPs. Local authorities play 
a more significant role dealing with small scale measures54. 

54  Portugal’s  reporting  sheets  identify  responsible  authorities  for  all  299  measures  reported.  It  has  not  been 

possible, however, to aggregate the range of information provided. 

34 

 
 
                                                 
4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

Portugal has indicated the progress of implementation for the 299 measures reported. Most of 
these measures have not started (219 measures out of 299, 73 %). Most of the measures that 
have not started are protection measures (89 measures, 96 % of all protection measures) and 
recovery  measures  (43  measures,  96  %  of  all  recovery  measures).  On  the  other  hand,  77 
measures are ongoing (26 % of all measures), and 68 of these are preparedness measures (62 
% of all preparedness measures). Three measures were completed at the time of reporting (1 
% of the 299 measures). 

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:  while  Portugal  did  not  provide  this  information  in  its 
reporting sheets, all five FRMPs assessed include this information. All five FRMPs refer to 
the  RBMPs  under  the  WFD.  Several  protection  measures  refer  to  national  civil  protection 
measures, and some measures are taken under the IPPC Directive.  

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

Some  spatial  planning/land  use  measures  have  been  included  in  the  FRMPs  (under 
Measure Types M2255 and M3356). Additionally, some actions are to be taken to assure the 
integration of the FRMPs into national and regional territorial management instruments. For 
example,  all  five  FRMPs  assessed  include  a  measure  for  the  demarcation  of  areas  where 
construction is prohibited, corresponding to areas of high probability of flooding occurrence 
(T = 20 years) in the FHRM; this measure also calls for the demarcation of adjacent zones 
corresponding to areas with a mean probability of flooding occurrence (T = 100 years) in the 
FHRM – here, there will be restrictions on construction.  

Areas of flood risk will be included in the National Ecological Reserve, a land use planning 
instrument that sets severe restrictions on construction and land use.  

Furthermore,  it  is  stated  in  the  FRMPs  that  coastal  flooding  and  their  land  management 
implications will be included in the next FRMPs cycle.  

55  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. 

56  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. 

35 

 
 
                                                 
While  Portugal’s  FRMPs  do  not  identify  natural  water  retention  measures  (NWRMs)57, 
Portugal  has  reported  29  measures  for  natural  flood  management58,  a  category  whose 
measures  in  most  cases  can  be  considered  NWRMs.  Within  this  category,  for  example, 
Portugal reported, for the FRMP for the Douro (PTRH3), a measure for the establishment of 
connectivity between lagoons and the river Tâmega and for stabilisation of the banks and bed 
in order to minimize the risk of floods59; another calls for the restoration of the natural state 
of the Samaiões riverbank60. 

Measures  that  specifically  consider  nature  conservation.  All  FRMPs  refer  in  a  generic 
manner  to  biodiversity  and  nature  conservation  in  the  text.  At  a  measure-specific  level, 
measures  considering  the  recovery  and  renaturalisation  of  water  bodies  affected  by  floods 
consider the WFD’s objective of good water status (including ecological status), referring to 
hydraulic,  biophysical  and  hydromorphological  components.  Nevertheless,  there  is  no 
reference  to  Natura  2000  or  other  formal  conservation  Directives  or  national  laws  on  this 
subject61. 

There are no specific measure targeting ports and navigation, although all FRMPs make a 
brief  statement  that  coastal  flooding  and  its  implications  for  ports  and  navigation  will  be 
considered in the second planning cycle62.  

Reference  has  been  found  in  all  five  FRMPs  assessed  to  dredging  to  increase  the  river 
channel  capacity  and  its  ability  to  convey  water  for  flood  alleviation  purposes.  All  the 
FRMPs  assessed  include  measures  in  their  annexes  for  dredging  as  part  of  a  strategy  for 
removing sediment in river channels, since silting is a problem for all the Portuguese UoM. 

57  Portugal  informed  subsequently  that  whereas  the  FRMPs  did  not  identify  NWRMs,  as  a  response  to  a 
European Court of Auditors audit in November 2017, an identification was carried out. There are 66 “green” 
measures for the seven mainland Plans. Portugal moreover informed that out of the 67 protection measures 
included  in  mainland  Portugal  FRMPs,  50  (78.1  %)  are  “green”  measures  –  which  are  understood  as 
NWRMs within the FRMPs – and 14 (21.9 %) are structural (“grey”) measures. In terms of costs, the green 
measures represent 55.5 % of the total budget for protection measures, while structural or “grey” measures 
represent the remaining share, 44.4 %. 

58  M31  Protection  Natural  flood  management  /  runoff  and  catchment  management,  Measures  to  reduce  the 
flow  into  natural  or  artificial  drainage  systems,  such  as  overland  flow  interceptors  and  /  or  storage, 
enhancement of infiltration, etc. and including in-channel, floodplain works and the reforestation of banks, 
that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water. Measures in this category can in most cases be 
considered as NWRMs, though measures in some other categories may as well. Measures in Category M31 
were reported for all UoMs except the Algarve Rivers (PTRH8).  

59  Potentially, NWRM measure type N02: Wetland restoration and management   
60  Potentially, NWRM measure type N10: Natural bank stabilisation   
61  PTRH3, PTRH4A, PTRH5A FRMPs Annex 13, PTRH9 FRMP Annex 2 and PTRH10 FRMP Annex 9. 
62  PTRH3, PTRH4A, PTRH5A FRMPs and Annex 13, PTRH9 FRMP and Annex 2 and PTRH10 FRMP and 

Annex 9. 

36 

 
 
                                                 
4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The  role  of  insurance  policies  is  discussed  in  all  five  FRMPs  assessed  with  regard  to  the 
recovery from, preparedness for and resilience to flood. According to the FRMPs, a recovery 
measure foresees a national legislative proposal that will provide a framework for insurance 
in  flood  prone  areas.  The  Portuguese  Environmental  Protection  Agency  (APA)  and  the 
Authority for the Supervision of Insurance and Pension Funds (ASF) are to participate in this 
legislative  procedure.  The  FRMP  for  Madeira  (PTHRH10)  also  indicates  measures  to 
encourage the acquisition of agricultural and natural disaster insurance. 

The  FRMPs  provide  little  information,  however,  with  regard  to  the  types  of  insurance 
currently available for potential flooding areas. 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

In the five FRMPs assessed, the FRMP measures template provided in the annex includes a 
space  to  enter  the  problem  the  measure  aims  to  tackle,  exposed  elements  addressed 
(population,  economic  activity,  etc.),  date  for  completion,  budget  allocation,  as  well  as  the 
cause  addressed.  There  is,  however,  no  baseline  formally  established.  Although  there  are 
impact indicators for some measures, there are no well-defined targets. Most indicators focus 
on how much financial, human or other resources will be employed in the implementation of 
a  certain  measure,  but  are  not  linked  to  the  extent  that  a  measure  helps  attain  a  certain 
objective. 

The  FRMPs  indicate  that  there  will  be  monitoring  by  the  central  authority,  the  Portuguese 
Environment  Agency  (APA)  and  the  National  Civil  Protection  Authority  is  involved  – 
however, further information on plans for monitoring is not provided.  

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. 

37 

 
 
 
 
Table 10 

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

PTRH3 

PTRH4
A 

PTRH5
A 

PTRH9  PTRH1

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

0 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Integration of FRMP and RBMP  

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP  

Coordination between authorities responsible for 
developing FRMP and RBMP  

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

The objectives of the Floods Directive were 
considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a 

Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in 
FRMPs  

The RBMP PoM includes win-win measures in 
terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and 
Floods Directive, drought management and 
NWRMs a 

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

Natural water retention and green infrastructure 
measures have been included  

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

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

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

The FRMPs refer to the necessity of coordination between the FRMPs and RBMPs, and the 
obligation to foster the achievement of the WFD objectives. The overlap between Flood Risk 
Areas (for the 100 years return period) and water bodies has been assessed, and a summary of 
the  status  for  each  of  the  water  bodies  concerned  is  presented  in  the  annex  of  each  FRMP. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This  is  intended  to  provide  coordination  with  the  environmental  objectives  in  Art.  4  of  the 
WFD. 

The  authorities  responsible  for  developing  FRMPs  and  RBMPs  are  the  same  for  all  UoMs 
assessed, so coordination should be ensured. Although the WFD objectives are not included 
as criteria for the prioritisation of FRMP measures, it is stated that they were accounted for in 
the development of the measures. 

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The  five  FRMPs  assessed  provide  estimated  costs  for  all  measures  as  well  as 

indications of the main funding sources. 

  The FRMPs assessed provide specific and measurable information on many (though not 
all) of their measures; moreover, measures are linked to objectives (though the latter are 
not  specific  and  measurable,  and  therefore  the  contribution  of  the  measures  to  their 
achievement cannot be assessed).  

  Priorities were set for all measures in the five FRMPs assessed, and the plans also set 

out the criteria used for prioritisation. 

  Portugal’s  FRMPs  include  measures  to  provide  a  national  framework  for  flood 

insurance. 

  The  links  between  APSFRs  under  the  Floods  Directive  and  water  bodies  (and  their 
good  status)  and  the  WFD  were  detailed  in  all  the  FRMPs  assessed.  The  overlap 
between Flood Risk Areas (for the 100 years return period) and water bodies has been 
assessed,  and  a  summary  of  the  status  for  each  of  the  water  bodies  concerned  is 
presented in the annex of each FRMP. 

The following areas for further development were identified:  

  The FRMPs include mostly effort indicators and few impact indicators: most indicators 
focus  on  how  much  financial,  human  or  other  resources  will  be  employed  in  the 
implementation  of  a  certain  measure  but  are  not  linked  to  the  extent  that  a  measure 
helps attain a certain objective. 

  The  FRMPs  lack  attention  to  measures  for  ports  and  navigation,  an  area  for  further 

development given their importance for Portugal. 

  Funding sources for measures are defined at a high level lacking specificity. 

39 

 
 
 
 
5.   Consideration of climate change 

The  five  FRMPs  have  not  considered  climate  change  in  depth.  Nonetheless,  all  FRMPs 
assessed  include  a  text  stating  that  in  the  second  cycle  of  the  Floods  Directive,  the 
implementation of prevention measures will be considered as a response to climate change, 
according to Portuguese national law (DL No 115/2010); the FRMPs also state that flood risk 
will  be  reassessed  by  2018,  taking  into  account  climate  change  impacts.  Furthermore,  the 
FRMPs  state  that  in  the  second  cycle  of  the  Flood  Directive  implementation,  coastal  and 
estuary  territorial  management  plans,  and  their  land  use  constraints  developed  considering 
climate change, will also be incorporated in the FRMPs.  

The FRMPs for both Azores (PTRH9) and Madeira (PTRH10) outline a measure in which the 
regional  strategies  against  climate  change  will  be  integrated  on  the  FRMPs,  but  without 
further detail. 

The  three  mainland  FRMPs  assessed  –  for  PTRH5,  PTRH3  and  PTRH4  -  contain  a  brief 
reference  to  the  National  Climate  Change  Adaptation  Strategy  (ENAAC),  although  no 
climate  change  scenarios  were  considered  in  the  preparation  of  the  FRMPs.  These  FRMPs 
mention that ENAAC and its scenarios will be considered in the second FRMPs.   

No information was found in the reporting sheets or the FRMPs with regard to shifts in the 
occurrence of extreme events, changes in numerical recurrence times or changes in the main 
sources of flooding under long-term climate change scenarios.  

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change 

Other than the measures noted above for Azores and Madeira, the five FRMPs assessed do 
not contain specific measures to address climate change. According to the information found, 
the design of other measures in the five FRMPs assessed has not considered climate change.  

5.2  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The  FRMPs  assessed  hardly  considered  climate  change.  The  FRMPs  assessed 
nonetheless  include  a  commitment  to  consider  climate  change  impacts  in  the  2018 
review of flood risks. 

40 

 
 
 
6.   Cost-benefit analysis 

In the five FRMPs assessed, there is no indication that cost-benefit analysis has been used for 
measures. 

While four of the five FRMPs assessed refer to criteria for the selection and prioritisation of 
measures, cost-benefit considerations are not included. It can be noted that the Azores FRMP 
(PTRH9) includes the “cost-effectiveness assessment of the measures” as one of its strategic 
objectives – however, no further information on this is found (this FRMP does not list criteria 
for the selection and prioritisation of measures). The FRMP for Madeira (PTRH10) includes 
a  measure  to  carry  out  a  cost/benefit  study:  measure  M02c–  “Develop  a  study  of  the 
economic impact of flood events and the cost-benefit analysis of mitigation measures”. 

There  are  no  measures  with  transnational  effects  identified  in  the  FRMPs  of  PTRH3  and 
PTRH5A,  and  thus  no  cost-benefit  analysis  was  done  on  transnational  effects  (the  other 
assessed FRMPs did not have any transboundary areas). 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following area for further development has been identified: 

  No  cost-benefit  assessment  was  undertaken  for  the  selection  or  prioritisation  of 

measures in the FRMPs assessed. 

41 

 
 
 
 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

Based  on  the  FRMPs  and  the  information  provided  in  the  reported  sheets,  the  Competent 
Authorities  and  the  Units  of  Management  identified  for  the  Floods  Directive  have  not 
changed. Portugal has not reported new information on Competent Authorities to WISE since 
2014. 

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the five UoMs 
assessed  concerning  the  draft  FRMPs.  Information  on  how  the  consultation  was  actually 
carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section: 

Table 11 

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  

SMS messaging  

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5A 

PTRH9 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

PTRH1063 
✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The  three  mainland  FRMPs  assessed  –  Douro  (PTRH3),  Vouga,  Mondego  and  Lis 
(PTRH4A) and Tagus and West Rivers (PTRH5A)  – followed a similar approach to public 
information.  The  public  and  stakeholders  were  informed  via  Internet64,  as  well  as  direct 
mailings,  invitations  to  stakeholders  and  information  provided  at  local  authorities  and  at 
meetings.  In  addition,  SMS  messaging  was  used  to  announce  meetings  for  the  PTRH3 
FRMP65.  

63 Portugal subsequently informed that for PTRH10 all methods were used to inform the public and interested 

parties of the FRMPs, except the use of SMS messaging. 

64  https://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=16&subref=7&sub2ref=9&sub3ref=1250  > 

tab  Participação 

Pública > tab Consulta Pública. 

65  The  three  FRMPs  and  Portugal’s  reporting  sheets  refer  to  a  public  participation  report  that  should  be  an 
attachment of the FRMP report. However, that attachment was not included in the documents submitted to 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
For the FRMPs for Azores (PTRH9), similar approaches were used as well as information via 
media66.  For  Madeira  (PTRH10),  the  FRMP  and  the  reporting  sheet  mention  specific 
activities (where and how the FRMP was publicized and available and meetings held), they 
do  not  specify  further  whether  stakeholders  were  directly  informed  and  invited  to 
participate67. 

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

Table 12 

Methods used for the actual consultation68 

Via Internet  

Digital social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

PTRH3 

PTRH4A  PTRH5A 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Other * 
Notes: * “Other” in Portugal included public participation response forms available online69. 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

For the three FRMPs assessed in mainland Portugal, a variety of mechanisms were used for 
consultation, including meetings. A technical meeting was held in an early stage of the FRMP 
development in each UoM with local authorities, to reinforce the identification and validation 
of  exposed  elements  to  floods  (households,  economic  activities,  cultural  sites,  protected 
environmental areas). Afterwards, a version of the FRMP was made available during a formal 
public consultation period (three months), during which a public workshop was held in each 

Eionet  by  Portugal.  The  public  participation  reports  can  be  found  at  the  official  website  of  the  national 
authority, and indicate the mechanisms used for informing the public and interested parties. For details, see: 
FRMPs,  Chapter  6;  Reporting  sheet  –  Summary  of  the  Consultation;  and  the  Portuguese  Environmental 
Agency's official website (URL: 
https://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=16&subref=7&sub2ref=9&sub3ref=1250#subnavpanel-5 (tab 
"Resultados")) 

66  The  reporting  sheet  provides  information  and  identifies  the  active  interested  parties  that  were  directly 
consulted  along  the  FRMP  development  process.  It  also  states  how  they  were  informed  (meetings,  online 
and  media  advertisement,  etc.).  PTRH9  FRMP  Chapter  8  and  reporting  sheet  –  Summary  of  the 
Consultation. 

67  PTRH10 FRMP Chapter 6 and reporting sheet - Summary of the Consultation. 
68   Portugal subsequently informed that for PTRH10 also direct invitation and direct involvement in the drafting 

of FRMP was employed. 

69  For PTRH3, PTRH4A and PTRH5A there were specific public participation inquiries/forms available online 

at the UoM authorities’ online portal.  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
UoM  to  discuss  the  plan  and  its  contents.  During  the  same  period,  online  inquiries  and 
standard forms for comments were available70.  

For  the  Azores  FRMP  (PTRH9),  an  advisory  group  with  16  representatives  of  different 
public, private and civil society organisations was formed to follow the development of the 
FRMP.  Afterwards,  a  draft  of  the  FRMP  was  made  available  during  a  formal  public 
consultation period (22 days)71.  

For  Madeira  (PTRH10)  a  draft  of  the  FRMP  was  made  available  during  a  formal  public 
consultation period (60 days), and in this period two public workshop were held (at the same 
location) to discuss the plan and its contents. During the same period, contributions could be 
sent by post, fax or online72. 

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

Table 13 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation73 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5A 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  

Direct mailing (post)  

Paper copies distributed at exhibitions  

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

Paper copies at the main office of the 
competent authority 

Paper Copies at the Portuguese 
Environment Agency main office 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

For the mainland FRMPs assessed, the draft FRMPs were made available online - both at the 
Portuguese  Environment  Agency  website  and 
in  a  Public  Participation  Portal 
(www.participa.pt)74. For Azores (PTRH9) as well, the documents were made available both 

70  PTRH3, PTRH4A and PTRH5A: FRMP's Chapter 6, Reporting sheet - Summary of the Consultation and the 

Portuguese Environmental Agency's official website (URL: 
https://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=16&subref=7&sub2ref=9&sub3ref=1250#subnavpanel-5 (tab 
"Resultados")) 

71  PTRH9 FRMP CHAPTER 8 and reporting sheet - Summary of the Consultation. 
72  PTRH10 FRMP Chapter 6 and reporting sheet - Summary of the Consultation. 
73   Portugal  subsequently  informed  that  for  PTRH10  the  documents  for  consultation  were  provided  also  as 
downloadable,, by direct mail (email) and as paper copies in the main office of the competent authority. 
74  PTRH3, PTRH4A and PTRH5A: FRMP's Chapter 6, Reporting sheet - Summary of the Consultation and the 

Portuguese Environmental Agency's official website (URL: 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
online (on website of the regional authority) and also in hardcopy at the main office  of the 
regional authority and in each island's specific service offices and the nine island offices of 
the UoM management authority75. For PTRH9 and PTRH10 it was also possible to receive 
documents via fax or post, though further information on methods for providing documents 
was not found76. 

7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

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

Table 14 

Groups of stakeholders 77 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A  PTRH5A 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

Civil Protection Authorities such as 
Government Departments responsible for 
emergency planning and coordination of 
response actions 

Flood Warning / Defence Authorities  

Drainage Authorities  

Emergency services  

Water supply and sanitation  

Agriculture / farmers  

Energy / hydropower  

Navigation / ports  

Fisheries / aquaculture  

Private business (Industry, Commerce, 
Services) 

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

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  

Academia / Research Institutions  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Other * 
Notes:  *  In  Portugal,  “Other”  comprises  the  following  stakeholders:  in  PTRH3,  waste 
management, insurance companies; in PTRH9, Regional Civil Engineering Laboratory. 

✔ 

✔ 

https://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=16&subref=7&sub2ref=9&sub3ref=1250#subnavpanel-5 (tab 
"Resultados")) 

75  PTRH9 FRMP Chapter 8 and Reporting sheet - Summary of the Consultation. 
76  Both PTRH10 FRMP Chapter 6 and the Reporting sheet – Summary of the Consultation were reviewed. 
77   Portugal subsequently informed that in PTRH10 all groups of stakeholders listed in table 14 were actively 

involved. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
The information available shows that for at least three of the five FRMPs assessed, a broad 
range of stakeholders were actively involved (see the table above). For the other two FRMPs 
assessed, similar information was not found.   

For two of the three mainland FRMPs assessed – Douro (PTRH3) and Vouga, Mondego and 
Lis  (PTRH4A)  –  the  Portuguese  Environmental  Agency  website  identifies  the  stakeholders 
that were actively involved in the development of the FRMPs: government bodies at different 
levels  and  for  different  sectors,  economic  interests  and  civil  society  associations  were  all 
involved. For the Douro, other groups involved included solid waste management companies 
and  insurance  companies.  For  the  Tagus  and  West  Rivers  (PTRH5),  the  FRMP  provides 
information on the main groups of stakeholders that were actively involved, but not in detail - 
e.g. “regional authorities” can cover a range of different sectors78.  

For Azores (PTRH9), in the FRMP chapter 8 there is a list of the entities that were involved 
in  the  development  of  the  FRMP,  including  the  entities  that  were  involved  in  the  advisory 
group 79.  

For Madeira (PTRH10), although the stakeholders considered for implementation of FRMP 
measures are identified, it is not clear which of them were actively involved in the FRMP's 
development80. 

The  table  below  shows  the  mechanisms  used  to  ensure  the  active  involvement  of 
stakeholders: 

Table 15 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders81 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A  PTRH5A 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

Regular exhibitions 

Establishment of advisory groups  

Involvement in drafting  

Workshops and technical meetings 

Formation of alliances  
Other82 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

78  FRMPs  PTRH3,  PTRH4A  and  PTRH5A:  FRMP's  Chapter  6,  Reporting  sheet  -  Summary  of  the 

Consultation and the Portuguese Environmental Agency's official website: 
https://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=16&subref=7&sub2ref=9&sub3ref=1250#subnavpanel-5 (tab 
"Resultados") 

79  PTRH9 FRMP Chapter 8 and Reporting sheet - Summary of the Consultation. 
80  PTRH10 FRMP Chapter 6.2 and Reporting sheet - Summary of the Consultation. 
81   Portugal  subsequently  informed  that  in  PTRH10  involvement  in  drafting  and  workshops  and  technical 

meetings were used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
Stakeholders  participated  via  technical  meetings  and  workshops  and  were  involved  in 
drafting for the mainland FRMPs assessed. As noted above, an  advisory group was formed 
for the preparation of the FRMP, with 16 representatives of different public, private and civil 
society organisations supported the development of the Azores FRMP (PTRH9).  

7.4 

Effects of consultation 

The table below shows the effects of consultation: 

Table 16 

Effects of consultation 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A  PTRH5A 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

Changes to selection of measures 

Adjustment to specific measures 

Addition of new information 

Changes to the methodology used 

Commitment to further research 

Commitment to action in the next FRMP  

Other83 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Information  was  found  regarding  the  effects  of  consultation  on  the  three  mainland  FRMPs 
assessed: adjustments were made to specific measures, to the cartography (with the addition 
of  more  detailed  information),  and  to  the  information  on  exposed  elements  (such  as 
population and economic activities) to flooding risks. In addition, the consultation resulted in 
a  commitment  to  integrate  climate  change  assessments  in  the  next  FRMP,  as  well  as 
integrating coastal and groundwater flood risks and consideration of potential new ASPFRs. 
For the Tagus and West Rivers (PTRH5A), this commitment extended also to the integration 
of a pluvial drainage assessment84. In addition, for this FRMP and for the Vouga, Mondego 
and Lis (PTRH4a), the consultation led to adjustments and clarifications on the explanation 
of the methodology. 

No information was found about the effects of consultation for Azores (PTRH9) or Madeira 
(PTRH10). 

83  PTRH4A, PTRH5A and PTRH10: Adjustments and clarifications on the methodology explanation. 
84  PTRH3, PTRH4A and PTRH5A: FRMPs Chapter 6, Reporting sheet - Summary of the Consultation and the 

Portuguese Environmental Agency's official website 
https://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=16&subref=7&sub2ref=9&sub3ref=1250#subnavpanel-5 (tab 
"Resultados") 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

All the FRMPs assessed have undergone an SEA procedure85. For the three mainland FRMPs 
assessed  (PTRH3,  PTRH4A  and  PTRH5A),  a  joint  SEA  process  was  undertaken  for  the 
FRMPs and the RBMPs under the WFD.  

For these three FRMPs as well as that for Madeira (PTRH10), the FRMPs do not mention the 
SEA reports; however, it is possible to consult them at websites of the national and regional 
authorities. For Azores (PTRH9), the FRMP refers to the SEA and a preliminary version of 
its report can be found on the regional authority's website. 

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practices were identified: 

  Multiple  mechanisms  were  used  for  informing  the  public  and  relevant  stakeholders 

about the consultation process in all the assessed FRMP;  

  Technical  meetings  were  held  at  an  early  stage of  the  process  to  validate  information 

(for PTRH3, PTRH4A and PTRH5);  

  The  establishment  of  advisory  groups  were  used  to  ensure  the  active  involvement  of 

stakeholders (for PTRH9);  

  Consultation's effects were detailed in publicly available reports (for PTRH3, PTRH4A 

and PTRH5). 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  The  effects  of  consultation  are  not  clear  for  two  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  (Azores, 

PTRH9, and Madeira, PTRH10) 

  Different periods for public consultation were used in different UoMs (ranging from 22 
days  to  three  months);  none  of  them  reached  six  months,  the  minimum  for  RBMPs 
under the WFD, and in at least one UoM, less than one month was provided. 

85  PTRH3, PTRH4A, PTRH5A: national authority's official website: 

https://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=16&subref=7&sub2ref=9&sub3ref=1250#subnavpanel-5; tab 
"Planos > Documentos" 
PTRH9: FRMP's Chapter 8 and regional authority's official website: 
http://www.azores.gov.pt/Gra/srrn-
drotrh/conteudos/livres/Plano+de+Gest%C3%A3o+de+Riscos+de+Inunda%C3%A7%C3%B5es+da+RAA.h
tm 
PTRH10: regional authority's official website: 
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BxPHHom7Ioe6RHQyalViOE1FUkE; folder "Avaliação Ambiental 
Estratégica" 

48 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

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

Background & method 

This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans 
(FRMPs). The tables and charts below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the 
Member States and were used by the Member State assessor to complete the questions on the 
Flood  measures.  The  data  are  extracted  from  the  XMLs  (reporting  sheets)  reported  by 
Member States for each FRMP, and are split into the following sections: 

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

  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; 

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

  Measure  details:  authorities  –  Name  of  responsible  authority  & 

level  of 

responsibility; 

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

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

  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts.  

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive)86, 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 State assessors were asked to refer to 
the  raw  data  when  conducting  the  assessment,  and  this  Annex  does  not  reflect  these 
observations. 

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

49 

 
 
                                                 
 

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 above on the name  of the  Responsible Authority), are 
categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The  following  table87  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 

87  Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a  

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ........... 55 
Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect ............. 55 
Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Category of priority by measure aspect .................... 57 
Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Category of priority by UoM .................................... 58 
Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ........ 60 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Progress of implementation by UoM ........................ 61 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ..................................................................................... 52 
Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM ................................ 52 
Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM ............................... 53 
Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and 
UoM, including duplicates ....................................................................................................... 53 
Table A5 - Category of priority by measure aspect ................................................................. 57 
Table A6 - Category of priority by UoM ................................................................................. 57 
Table A7 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect .................................................... 59 
Table A8 – Progress of implementation by UoM .................................................................... 60 

51 

 
 
 
 
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 including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type (Min-Max) 

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

Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM 

76 

76 

223 

223 

299 

299 

2-35 

33 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Other 

Grand Total 

M22 

M24 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

M41 

M42  M44 

M52 

M53 

M65 

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5A 

PTRH6 

PTRH8 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

Grand Total 

1 

1 

2 

Average per UoM 

<1 

3 

3 

<1 

5 

2 

2 

6 

8 

1 

1 

25 

3 

1 

4 

5 

1 

2 

13 

1 

1 

1 

7 

9 

1 

1 

7 

8 

1 

2 

1 

4 

7 

1 

1 

3 

4 

<1 

52 

6 

3 

6 

15 

9 

2 

2 

11 

22 

76 

8 

1 

1 

<1 

1 

1 

2 

<1 

2 

2 

<1 

0 

0 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review  Other  Grand 
Total 

M21  M22  M23  M24  M31  M32  M33  M34  M35  M41  M42  M43  M44  M51  M52  M53  M61 

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5A 

PTRH6 

PTRH8 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

15 

2 

16 

2 

1 

3 

4 

1 

1 

10 

1 

1 

1 

3 

4 

1 

3 

2 

1 

16 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

10 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

8 

1 

3 

1 

4 

<1 

3 

2 

5 

1 

1 

1 

<1 

5 

5 

9 

11 

11 

9 

13 

3 

1 

67 

7 

2 

3 

4 

5 

3 

2 

2 

1 

22 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

10 

25 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

8 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

8 

1 

1 

5 

6 

1 

2 

2 

<1 

Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, including duplicates 

Prevention 

Aggregated  Individual 

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5A 

PTRH6 

PTRH8 

4 

5 

7 

4 

8 

4 

4 

1 

l
a
t
o
T

4 

5 

7 

5 

8 

4 

4 

Protection 

Aggregated  Individual 

3 

4 

5 

12 

4 

4 

4 

5 

3 

6 

14 

9 

2 

2 

l
a
t
o
T

8 

7 

11 

26 

13 

6 

6 

Preparedness 

Aggregated 

Individual 

1 

5 

7 

12 

15 

16 

12 

15 

53 

l
a
t
o
T

6 

7 

12 

15 

16 

12 

15 

Recovery & review 

Aggregated 

Individual 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

16 

20 

28 

35 

32 

24 

27 

17 

24 

0 

0 

223 

25 

Other 

Grand 
Total 

22 

23 

34 

50 

41 

26 

29 

l
a
t
o
T

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prevention 

Aggregated  Individual 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

Grand Total 

Average per 
UoM 

7 

3 

46 

5 

3 

1 

5 

1 

l
a
t
o
T

10 

4 

51 

6 

Protection 

Aggregated  Individual 

1 

2 

39 

4 

5 

8 

54 

6 

l
a
t
o
T

6 

10 

93 

10 

Preparedness 

Aggregated 

Individual 

8 

7 

97 

11 

2 

10 

13 

1 

l
a
t
o
T

10 

17 

110 

12 

Recovery & review 

Aggregated 

Individual 

1 

12 

41 

5 

1 

3 

4 

<1 

l
a
t
o
T

2 

15 

45 

5 

Other 

Grand 
Total 

28 

46 

299 

33 

0 

0 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The information in Table A4 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect 

Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect 

Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

55 

 
 
 
 
  Cost explanation (optional field). 

Portugal did not report any information about costs or cost explanations for the measures in 
the reporting sheets.  

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to report information on the following: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); 

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

Location of measures 

Portugal  provided  information  about  the  location  of  all  measures  in  the  reporting  sheets, 
however, this was an open question, and nearly 50 different responses were given. It was thus 
not practical to aggregate the information. 

Geographic coverage 

Portugal did not report any information about the geographic coverage of the effects of the 
measures 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 

Portugal did not report any information about the objectives of the measures in the reporting 
sheets. 

56 

 
 
 
 
Category of priority 

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

  Critical; 

  Very high; 

  High; 

  Moderate; 

  Low. 

Table A5 - Category of priority by measure aspect 

Critical 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

1 

2 

3 

6 

7 

82 

8 

97 

43 

48 

17 

27 

135 

7 

29 

11 

7 

54 

7 

7 

51 

93 

110 

45 

299 

Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Category of priority by measure aspect 

Table A6 - Category of priority by UoM 

Critical 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

Grand Total 

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

7 

7 

14 

19 

12 

11 

15 

22 

57 

3 

4 

5 

7 

1 

2 

22 

23 

34 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Critical 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

Grand Total 

PTRH5A 

PTRH6 

PTRH8 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

6 

6 

1 

18 

13 

16 

3 

97 

11 

15 

13 

10 

11 

26 

135 

15 

5 

3 

16 

11 

54 

6 

3 

1 

7 

1 

41 

26 

29 

28 

46 

299 

33 

Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Category of priority by UoM 

Timetable 

Portugal  provided  information  about  the  timetable  of  all  measures  in  the  reporting  sheets, 
however, this was an open question, and very diverse responses were given. It was thus not 
practical to aggregate the information. 

Measure details: authorities 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Name of the responsible authority (optional if ‘level of responsibility’ is reported);   

  Level of responsibility (optional if ‘name of the responsible authority’ is reported).  

Portugal reported the responsible authorities for the majority of the measures (292 measures) 
in the reporting sheets. However, as this was an open question the responses varied greatly in 
detail and content and it was not practical to aggregate the information.  

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Portugal  did  not  provide  information  about  the  level  of  responsibility  of  the  responsible 
authorities in the reporting sheets.  

Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

whose responses are analysed below; 

  Progress  description  of  the  implementation  of  measures  (optional  field)  –  this  is  an 
open text question for which not all Member States reported and whose answers are not 
analysed here. 

Portugal  reported  information  about  the  progress  of  implementation  of  the  measures.  The 
Progress of implementation was reported as88:  

  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 A7 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

Completed 

Ongoing 
construction 
1 

Progress 
ongoing 
5 

2 

1 

3 

2 

3 

68 

1 

74 

Not started 

Grand Total 

45 

89 

42 

43 

219 

51 

93 

110 

45 

299 

88  Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Table A8 – Progress of implementation by UoM 

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5A 

PTRH6 

PTRH8 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

Completed 

Ongoing 
construction 

Progress 
ongoing 
5 

5 

9 

11 

11 

9 

11 

10 

3 

74 

8 

3 

3 

<1 

3 

3 

<1 

Not started 

Grand Total 

17 

18 

25 

39 

30 

17 

18 

12 

43 

219 

24 

22 

23 

34 

50 

41 

26 

29 

28 

46 

299 

33 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Progress of implementation by UoM 

The categories describing the progress of measures are defined in the EU Reporting Guidance 
Document on the Floods Directive: 

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

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

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

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

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

but are not finalized. 

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

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

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

provided any advisory session yet. 

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

61 

 
 
 
  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. 

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

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

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

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

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 

  Completed (COM) means the research, investigation or study has been finalised and 
has been delivered, i.e. the results or deliverables are available (report, model, etc.). 

For measures involving administrative acts (e.g. licenses, permits, regulations, 
instructions, etc.): 

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

been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

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

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 

  Completed (COM) means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license 
or  permit  has  been  issued;  the  regulation  has  been  adopted,  etc.).  If  the  measure 
involves more than one administrative act, “completed” is achieved only when all of 
them have been concluded. 

Measure details: other 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

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

  Any other information reported (optional field). 

62 

 
 
Portugal did not report information about any of these fields in the reporting sheets. 

63 

 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures89 

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 

89 Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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)  

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 NWRMs 

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    N05 Stream bed re-

U05 Channels and rills   

A06 No till agriculture   

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry   

naturalization   

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams   

U06 Filter Strips   

65 

 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A07 Low till agriculture    F07 'Water sensitive' 

driving   

A08 Green cover   

A09 Early sowing   

F08 Appropriate design 
of roads and stream 
crossings   

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds   

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   

U09 Rain Gardens   

A10 Traditional 
terracing   

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming   

A12 Reduced stocking 
density   

A13 Mulching 

F10 Coarse woody debris    N10 Natural bank 

U10 Detention Basins   

F11 Urban forest parks   

stabilisation   

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection   

U11 Retention Ponds  

F12 Trees in Urban areas   N12 Lake restoration  

U12 Infiltration basins   

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 

66