COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans – Member State: Belgium Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on 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: Belgium, 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) 62 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans – Member State: Belgium Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on 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) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... 3 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4 

Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 5 

Overview of the assessment ..................................................................................................... 7 

Good Practices........................................................................................................................ 11 

Areas for further development ............................................................................................... 12 

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 14 

1. 

 Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment .......................... 15 

1.1  Reporting of the FRMPs ............................................................................................. 15 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs .......................................................................................... 15 

2. 

 Integration of previously reported information ................................................................. 16 

2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment................................. 16 

2.2 

Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs ..................... 17 

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas .................................................... 18 

2.4  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk 
maps   ..................................................................................................................................... 19 

2.5  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration 
of previously reported information ........................................................................................ 20 

3. Setting of Objectives .............................................................................................................. 21 

3.1 

3.2 

Focus of objectives ...................................................................................................... 21 

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................. 22 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ............................................ 22 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding .............................. 23 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives ................................................................................ 23 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ........ 24 

4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ............................................................ 25 

4.1  Cost of measures ......................................................................................................... 26 

4.2 

Funding of measures ................................................................................................... 26 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures ............................................. 27 

4.4  Measures and objectives.............................................................................................. 28 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures ..................................................................... 28 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ............................................................................................ 29 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ............................................ 30 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures .................................................................... 31 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ............................................................ 31 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ........................................................................................ 32 

1 

 
4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding ................................................................... 33 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ....................................................... 34 

4.13  Coordination with the WFD ........................................................................................ 34 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures .............. 36 

5. 

 Consideration of climate change ....................................................................................... 37 

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change .............................. 37 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change .......... 38 

6. Cost-benefit analysis .............................................................................................................. 39 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ...................................................... 39 

7. 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation40 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................. 40 

7.2 

Public information and consultation ........................................................................... 40 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders ........................................................................... 42 

7.4 

7.5 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................. 44 

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ............................................................... 44 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................. 44 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures .......................................................... 45 

Background & method ........................................................................................................... 45 

Types of measures used in reporting ...................................................................................... 46 

List of Annex A tables & figures ........................................................................................... 47 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................. 48 

Measure details: cost .............................................................................................................. 51 

Measure details: name & location .......................................................................................... 52 

Measure details: objectives .................................................................................................... 53 

Measure details: authorities .................................................................................................... 57 

Measure details: progress ....................................................................................................... 60 

Measure details: other ............................................................................................................ 63 

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

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures ................................................................... 65 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

APSFR 

CBA 
EEA 

FD 
FHRM 

FRMP 
NGO 

NWRM 
PFRA 

PoM 
RBD 

RBMP 
SEA 

UoM 
WFD 

WISE 

Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 

Cost-Benefit Analysis 
European Environment Agency 

Floods Directive 
Flood Hazard & 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 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Introduction 

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

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

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

Assessments (PFRAs) 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  Belgium1.  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  FRMPs:  five  of  Belgium’s  seven  FRMPs  were  reviewed.  The  assessment 
identified at least one FRMP from each of Belgium’s three regions, as each region was 
expected  to  follow  a  different  approach  for  its  plans.  The  selection  included  the  three 
FRMPs  for  the  Scheldt/Schelde/Escaut3  international  basin,  to  understand  if  there  had 
been  cooperation  for  this  basin  that  crosses  all  three  Belgian  regions.  The  following 

FRMPs were chosen: 

o  The  only  FRMP  for  the  Brussels  Region  for  the  Scheldt/Schelde/Escaut  Unit  of 

Management (UoM) in Brussels 

o  In Flanders, the FRMPs for Scheldt/Schelde UoM and for the Meuse/Maas4 UoM. 
o  In the Walloon Region, the FRMPs for this region’s part of the Rhine UoM and the 

Scheldt/Escaut UoM.  

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  Member 
States may have altered since then. 

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

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

3   This report uses the English spelling, Scheldt. 
4   This report uses the English spelling, Meuse. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview 

Figure 1 

Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts (RBDs) 

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

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

Belgium  has  designated  seven  UoMs.  These  correspond  to  the  seven  of  the  eight  RBDs 
designated  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD).  The  eighth  RBD  is  for  Belgium’s 
North  Sea  coastal  waters;  it  does  not  cover  the  coastline  itself  and  consequently  it  is  not 

covered under the FD. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
for 

In Belgium, there is one FRMP for each UoM. Belgium has reported seven UoMs: there are 
the  Brussels-Capital  Region5 
three 
(BEEscaut_Schelde_BR),  one  in  the  Flanders  Region  (BESchelde_VL),  and  one  in  the 
Walloon  Region  (BEEscaut_RW);  the  Meuse  River  basin  has  UoMs,  one  in  Flanders 

the  Scheldt  River 

basin, 

one 

in 

(BEMaas_VL) and one in Wallonia (BEMeuse_RW); there is one UoM for the Belgian part of 
the  Rhine  basin  (BERhin_RW)  and  one  for  the  Belgian  part  of  the  Seine  (BESeine_RW). 

Consequently,  there  are  three  Belgian  UoMs  for  the  Scheldt  international  basin,  one  in  each 
Belgian  region,  and  two  for  the  Meuse  international  basin,  one  each  in  the  Flanders  and 

Walloon Regions. 

The  FRMPs  prepared  in  Flanders  and  the  FRMP  prepared  for  Brussels  have  been  integrated 

into  the  corresponding  RBMPs;  each  plan  has  a  single  Programme  of  Measures  (PoM), 
covering both WFD and FD measures. Wallonia follows a different approach and the FRMPs 

and  RBMPs  are  separate  documents.  In  this  report,  the  plans  are  referred  to  collectively  as 
FRMPs, even though some are integrated with the RBMPs.  

The FRMPs were adopted at regional level:  

 

 

 

In  the  Brussels  Region,  the  Water  Management  Plan  incorporating  the  FRMP  was 
approved on 26 January 20176. 
In  the  Flanders  Region,  all  RBMPs  (containing  the  FRMPs)  were  adopted  on  18 
December 2015 and published on 2 March 20167. 
In  the  Walloon  Region,  the  FRMPs  were  approved  by  the  regional  government  on  10 
March 20168.  

The  table  below  gives  an  overview  of  all  UoMs  in  Belgium,  including  the  UoM  code,  the 

name, and the number of APSFRs reported (Belgium applied Art. 13(1)(b) of the FD and did 
not designate APSFRs – see Section 2 for further information). It also shows if all documents 

required  for  each  UoM  were  submitted  to  European  Environment  Agency’s  (EEA)  Water 
Information System for Europe (WISE)9 – the FRMP as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an 
XML.   

5  For brevity, referred to as the Brussels Region or Brussels in this report. 
6    Arrêté  du Gouvernement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale approuvant le Plan de Gestion de l'eau pour la 

période 2016-2021: 
http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=2017012638&table_name=loi  
7   http://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/nl/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen-2016-2021  
8   See: http://environnement.wallonie.be/inondations/inondations_plans_de_gestion_cycle1.htm  
9   http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/603/deliveries?id=603&tab=deliveries&d-4014547-p=1&d-4014547-

o=2&d-4014547-s=3  

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Belgium 

UoM 

Name 

Number of APSFRs 

XML reported 

PDF Reported 

BEEscaut_RW 

BEEscautSchelde_BR 

BEMAAS_VL 

BEMeuse_RW 

BERhin_RW 

BESchelde_VL 

BESeine_RW 

SCHELDT 
(Walloon Region) 

No APSFRs assigned  
(Art. 13(1)(b) applied) 

SCHELDT 
(Brussels Region) 

No APSFRs assigned  
(Art. 13(1)(b) applied) 

Meuse 

(Flanders Region) 

No APSFRs assigned  
(Art. 13(1)(b) applied) 

MEUSE (Walloon 
Region) 

No APSFRs assigned  
(Art. 13(1)(b) applied) 

Rhine 

No APSFRs assigned 

(Walloon Region) 

(Art. 13(1)(b) applied) 

Scheldt 

No APSFRs assigned 

(Flanders Region) 

(Art. 13(1)(b) applied) 

Seine 

No APSFRs assigned 

(Walloon Region) 

(Art. 13(1)(b) applied) 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web pages: 

  Brussels-Capital Region: https://leefmilieu.brussels/themas/water/waterbeheerplan  

  Flanders Region: 

http://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/nl/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen/stroomgebiedbeheer
plannen-2016-2021/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen-voor-schelde-en-maas-2016-2021  

  Wallonia Region: 

http://environnement.wallonie.be/inondations/inondations_pgri_2016.htm 

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. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 2 

Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Flood  risk  management 
objectives 
been 
established  

have 

Strong evidence 

All five FRMPs assessed contain flood risk 
management objectives. The overall objectives 
are set at regional level.  

Flood risk management objectives relate to...  

...the  reduction  of  potential 
adverse consequences  

Strong evidence  

...to  the  reduction  of  the 
likelihood of flooding  

Some evidence  

...to non-structural initiatives   Strong evidence  

This is included as an objective in each of the 
five FRMPs assessed and consequently in all 
three regions. In Flanders, there is a general 
objective for the reduction of flood risk and 
damage; in Wallonia, there is a strategic 
objective to limit damage to persons and 
property; and in Brussels, reducing damage 
from floods is a strategic objective.  

In the Brussels Region the objectives refer to 
the reduction in the likelihood of flooding. In 
the Flanders Region, the overall objective calls 
for the reduction of flood risk, thus 
incorporating reduction of the likelihood of 
flooding. In the Walloon Region, the 
operational objectives for river bed and 
floodplain initiatives should reduce flood 
likelihood.   

The FRMPs assessed in the Walloon Region 
include objectives related to crisis management 
and safety and post-flood management. The 
FRMPs assessed in the Flanders and Brussels 
Regions refer to non-structural objectives 
including non-structural preventive and 
preparedness measures. 

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

...human health  

Strong evidence  

...economic activity  

Strong evidence  

In the Brussels Region, reducing harm to 
inhabitants is included in the strategic objective. 
The Flanders Region refers to protection for 
people in its overarching objective. The 
strategic objective of the Walloon Region refers 
to reducing harm to persons. 

In Brussels, the FRMP refers to the prevention 
of harm to buildings and infrastructure. In 
Flanders, the FRMPs have a general objective 
for reduction of flood risk and damage to 

8 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...environment  

Some evidence  

...cultural heritage  

Some evidence  

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence  

...prioritised  

Strong evidence  

economic activity. In Wallonia, the strategic 
objective includes the reduction of impacts on 
economic activity. 

The overarching objective for the Flanders 
FRMPs refers to protection of the ecology. The 
FRMPs in Flanders also include a separate sub-
objective on preventing flood risk and damage 
to the ecology. The strategic objective for the 
FRMPs in Wallonia refers to limiting harm to 
the environment; an operational objective takes 
into consideration natural habitats in their 
objectives related to river beds and floodplains. 

References to the environment are not found in 
the objectives for Brussels. 

In Flanders, protecting cultural heritage is cited 
in the overarching objective. In Wallonia, the 
strategic objective refers to the reduction of 
negative impacts on cultural heritage. 

Cultural heritage is not explicitly mentioned in 
the objectives of the FRMP of Brussels. 

Belgium has reported measures for all of its 
UoMs, and the FRMPs assessed provide 
information on their measures.  

The number of measures reported varies across 
the three regions: 25 measures are reported for 
the one UoM in Brussels, 23 for the two UoMs 
in Flanders, and 620 for the four UoMs in 
Wallonia. (Measures reported for the Flanders 
region represent aggregated activities which are 
further specified in the plans via individual 
actions.) 

Belgium has indicated priorities for all 668 
measures reported.  

All five FRMPs assessed provide information 
on the criteria used for prioritisation and refer to 
a process for the prioritisation of measures.  

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

...costs & benefits  

Some evidence  

There are references in the assessed FRMPs 
indicating that a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) has 

9 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

...flood conveyance  

No evidence  

...water retention  

Strong evidence  

...environmental  objectives 
of the WFD  

Strong evidence  

...spatial planning/land use   Strong evidence  

...nature conservation  

Some evidence  

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

Strong evidence  

Comments 
been done, except for Brussels10, but details are 
limited in the FRMPs or in background 
documents on the methodology and outcomes. 
In Wallonia, the CBA corresponds to the second 
criterion of the multi-criteria analysis included 
in the FRMPs. 

Maps showing flood extent are available for all 
FRMPs assessed, and the plans indicate that this 
information was considered in the preparation 
of the FRMPs. 

No references to flood conveyance were found 
in any of the FRMPs assessed. 

All five FRMPs assessed include natural water 
retention measures (NWRM). Examples include 
river restoration (found in FRMPs in all three 
regions), soil conservation measures in 
agriculture (found in the FRMPs assessed in the 
Walloon Region) and aquifer restoration (found 
in the FRMP for the Brussels Region). 

As noted above, in the Flanders and Brussels 
Regions, the FRMPs and RBMPs are combined 
in common plans. Moreover, all five FRMPs 
assessed indicate that there was coordination 
with the environmental objectives of the WFD.  

All five FRMPs assessed include measures to 
address spatial planning and land use. In all 
three regions, the FRMPs set out measures to 
restrict building in areas subject to flooding.  

While each of the five plans assessed indicate 
that the objectives and measures take into 
consideration aspects of nature conservation 
(e.g. Natura 2000 areas), few details are 
provided. 

In Flanders, reduction of risk and damage to 
inland navigation is included in the objectives. 
For the Brussels and Walloon Regions, the 
FRMPs state that shipping has been taken into 

10   Belgium clarified subsequently that the Brussels region did not carry out a  cost-benefit  analysis, as it is  not 

considered mandatory under the Flood Directive. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...likely  impact  of  climate 
change  

Strong evidence  

Coordination  with  other 
countries  ensured  in  the 
RBD/UoM  

Strong evidence  

Coordination  ensured  with 
WFD  

Strong evidence  

involvement 

Active 
interested parties  

of 

Strong evidence  

consideration, although specific details are not 
provided. 

All five FRMPs assessed indicate that climate 
change impacts were taken into account, though 
the extent of information varies. The FRMP for 
the Brussels Scheldt UoM identifies potential 
impacts of climate change and indicates that this 
was considered in the design of some measures. 

All five FRMPs refer to coordination within 
international commissions for the Meuse, 
Scheldt and Rhine, depending on the specific 
UoM, though details on coordination activities 
were not provided. 

In Flanders and Brussels regions, the FRMPs 
are integrated within the RBMPs as a single 
plan. Across all five FRMPs assessed, 
coordination was seen, including joint 
consultation and reference to objectives. 

Interested parties were actively involved via a 
range of mechanisms, including workshops, 
technical meetings and advisory meetings. 

Good Practices 

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

Table 3  Good practices in the Belgian FRMPs 

Topic area 

Integration  of  previously 
reported  information  in  the 
FRMPs. 

Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk.  

Good practices identified 

The  plan  for  the  Brussels  Scheldt  UoM  includes  an  overview  of 
historical data on flood damage and flood events. 

In  Brussels,  the  online  FHRMs  were  updated.  In  Flanders,  there  were 
updates  to  the  online  FHRMs  in  2014  and  2017  with  the  inclusion  of 
new  information  on  flood  events.  In  Wallonia,  a  new  version  of  the 
FHRM was published, integrating remarks related to public inquiry and 
more recent data. 

The  strategic  objective  for  the  Brussels  Scheldt  UoM  is  elaborated  in 
detailed  operational  objectives;  these  in  turn  are  linked  to  sub-actions, 
each of them is explained in specific terms: who, what and where.  

Planning/implementing  of 
their 
measures 

and 

For  the  FRMPs  in  the  Walloon  Region,  ranges  of  cost  estimates  have 
been elaborated for all measures in the FRMPs assessed. 

11 

 
 
 
Topic area 
for 

prioritisation 
achievement of objectives. 

the 

Consideration  of  climate 
change 
the  FRMPs 
assessed.  

in 

Cost benefit analysis 

Public consultation.  

Flood risk governance.  

Good practices identified 

All the FRMPs assessed contain land use and spatial planning measures 
and all include natural water retention measures.  

All  five  FRMPs  assessed  provided  an  overview  of  the  method  for 
monitoring  progress  of  measures.  For  the  regions  of  Flanders  and 
Brussels-Capital, monitoring is carried out on a yearly basis11. 
The FRMP for the Brussels Scheldt UoM provides an analysis of climate 
change  forecasts  and  their  implications  for  water  management,  based 
upon a detailed background study. 

The  Flanders  and  Walloon  FRMPs  assessed  included  cost  and  benefit 
aspects among the criteria for the prioritisation of measures. 

In  Flanders  and  Wallonia,  stakeholders  were  involved  via  advisory 
groups.   

The integration of the FRMP and RBMP into one report in Flanders and 
Brussels  aligns  flood  risk  governance  with  other  aspects  of  water 
management. 

Areas for further development 

The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the Belgian FRMPs 

assessed. 

Table 4  Areas for further development in the Belgian FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas for further development identified 

Planning/implementation of 
their 
measures 
the 
prioritisation 
achievement of objectives.  

and 

for 

Use  of  CBA  in  the  FRMPs 
assessed.  

The Brussels Scheldt FRMP does not provide information on the costs of 
flood  measures;  the  FRMPs  for  the  Walloon  Region  present  ranges 
rather than specific cost levels12.  
The  Brussels  Scheldt  FRMP  does  not  provide  information  on  funding 
sources for measures. 
The Brussels Scheldt plan does not refer to the use of CBA.13 

Consideration  of  climate 
the  FRMPs 
change 
assessed. 

in 

The  Flemish  FRMPs  do  contain  a  reference  to  the  regional  Flemish 
Adaptation  Plan.  There  is  no  apparent  coordination  with  the  national 
climate change adaptation strategy.14 

11   Belgium  informed  subsequently  that  also  in  Wallonia  each  measure  is  evaluated  at  least  once  a  year  via 

“computerised monitoring”. 

12   Belgium  subsequently  noted  that  for  Flanders,  this  information  was  available  on  the  region’s  web  pages 
(http://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/nl/geoloket/overzicht-acties).  This  information  includes  a  total  overview 
of  all  actions  (i.e.  specific,  detailed  measures)  in  the  Programme  of  Measures  (PoM).  The  PoM  contains 
detailed information for almost all actions, including cost estimates and funding sources. 

13 Belgium subsequently noted that a cost/benefit analysis is not a requirement of the FD. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                 
Topic area 

Areas for further development identified 

International issues in flood 
risk management.  

Flood risk governance 

The  FRMPs  assessed  provide  limited  information  on  coordination  via 
international  river  basin commissions  and  bilaterally  with  neighbouring 
Member States. 

There  is  only  summary  information  available  in  the  FRMPs  on 
coordination  in  Belgium15,  for  example  on  objectives16  and  measures, 
between  regions  or  at  national  level  in  shared  river  basins  (i.e.  the 
Scheldt17 and Meuse).18 

14 Belgium subsequently noted that considering climate change impacts is not a requirement of the FD for the 1 st 

FRMPs. 

15   Belgium subsequently recalled that it is a federal state with exclusive competence for the regions with regard 
to  water  policy.  This  means  that  the  regions  have  competences  similar  to  Member  States.  To  support  the 
coordination between the regions, cooperation agreements have been set up. The Coordination Committee for 
International  Environmental  Policy  (CCIEP)  deals  mainly  with  the  coordination  of  Belgian  comments, 
positions  or  delegations  on  policy  matters  and  with  reporting  to  international  organisations.  The  Steering 
Group on Water of the CCIEP operates according to the general mandates of the CCIEP and is used for the 
coordination  of  the  implementation  of  the  WFD  and  the  FD.  Thus,  the  CCIEP  provides  the  appropriate 
administrative  arrangements  (art.  3  §2)  for  the  coordination  of  the  implementation,  while  fully  recognizing 
four  competent  authorities.  Taking  into  account  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  regions,  the  cooperation 
between  the  regions  and  the  federal  state  envisages  a  coordinated  implementation  of  the  WFD  and  the  FD, 
which in itself does not require a “harmonized” implementation. 

16   Belgium noted subsequently that all three regions have shared their methodologies, but for various reasons it 
was decided that each region should make the best use of the information available to it instead of applying a 
least  common  denominator  approach.  For  example,  in  the  Brussels  Region,  floods  caused  by  sewers  (or 
pluvial floods) was the most important source of flooding (far more than fluvial floods) and it was decided to 
apply a methodology that could cope with this source of flooding. 

17   Belgium  subsequently  noted  that,  for  the  Scheldt  UoMs,  coordination  took  place  in  the  context  of  the 
International  Scheldt  Commission,  for  example  in  the  working  group  PA7  –  CIE.  This  is  described  in 
“Overkoepelend 
internationale 
scheldestroomgebiedsdistrict  /  Partie  faîtière  du  plan  de  gestion  des  risque  d’inondation  du  district 
hydrographique international de l’Escaut”, available at: 

overstromingsrisicobeheerplan 

voor 

deel 

van 

het 

het 

http://www.isc-cie.org/images/Documents/ODB1-PFPG1_ROR-DRI_def.pdf  
18   Belgium also noted that, in addition to multilateral coordination, bilateral coordination meetings are also held 
between the regions,  for example on  water quantity  management  in the Interregional  Consultation group on 
Inland Waterways. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
Recommendations 

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

  The  FRMPs  should  provide  an  overview  of  the  costs  of  their  measures  and  the  expected 

funding sources.  

  The second FRMPs should provide a more detailed description of the expected impacts of 
climate  change  on  the  occurrence  of  floods,  based  on  the  available  studies.  Coordination 

with the national climate change adaptation strategy should be ensured or elaborated upon 
in the FRMPs. 

  Where relevant, the FRMPs should incorporate CBA for the prioritisation of measures that 

lend themselves to it and provide a clear description of the methodology used. 

  The FRMPs should clearly describe the actions taken for international cooperation.  

  The  FRMPs  should  provide  further  information  on  coordination  carried  out  within 
Belgium,  in  particular  within  the  common  river  basins  of  the  Meuse  and  the  Scheldt,  to 

ensure synergies in their objectives and measures. 

14 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Belgium  has  reported  seven  UoMs  and  seven  FRMPs:  there  are  three  for  the  Scheldt 
international UoM, one in the Brussels Region (for the BEEscaut_Schelde_BR UoM), one in 

the Flanders Region (BESchelde_VL UoM), and one in the Walloon Region (BEEscaut_RW 
UoM); there are two FRMPs for the Meuse international UoM, one in Flanders (BEMaas_VL) 

and  one  in  Wallonia  (BEMeuse_RW);  there  is  one  FRMP  for  the  Belgian  part  of  the  Rhine, 
found in the Walloon Region (BERhin_RW); and one for the Belgian part of the Seine, also in 

the Walloon Region (BESeine_RW).  

Belgium did not make use of Article 13.3 of the FD, which allowed Member States to make 
use  of  previous  FRMPs  for  the  first  cycle  (provided  their  content  is  equivalent  to  the 

requirements set out in the Directive). 

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

The selection of the FRMPs for assessment included plans from  each of the three regions  of 
Belgium: the Brussels-Capital region19, Flanders and Wallonia. This was because each region 
was  expected  to  follow  a  slightly  different  approach.  The  Scheldt  basin  FRMPs  in  all  three 

regions were included to allow a comparison of approaches to flood risks.  

The following UoMs and FRMPs were chosen for review: 

Table 5 UoMs and FRMPs assessed in Belgium 

UoM code 

BEEscautSchelde_BR 

BEMaas_VL 

BESchelde_VL 

BERhin_RW 

BEEscaut_RW 

UoM Name 

SCHELDT (Brussels region) 

MEUSE (Flanders region) 

SCHELDT (Flanders region) 

RHINE (Walloon region) 

SCHELDT (Walloon region) 

19   For brevity, referred to as the Brussels Region or Brussels in this report. 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

All three regions in Belgium applied Art. 13(1)(b) and decided not to perform a PFRA under 

the FD and include instead their whole territory in the maps and plans as Areas of Potentially 
Significant Flood Risk (APSFRs).  

The  methodology  to  delineate  flood  risk  areas  is  described  in  the  FRMPs  assessed20.  In 
Brussels,  the  delineation  of  flood  risk  areas  was  based  upon  historical  information  on  flood 

events  (point  locations):  these  data  were  used  as  a  starting  point  for  calculations  of  areas  of 
flood risk based on topography, soil, hardened surfaces and other factors. In Flanders, the flood 

hazard and flood risk maps were developed based upon a hydraulic model using a base map of 
the hydrographical network with a selection of water courses that pose a potentially significant 

flood  risk.  These  potential  risks  were  derived  from  the  database  with  flood  events  from  the 
Flanders Disaster Fund. In Wallonia, flood risk areas were designated using information from 

the field and hydraulic modelling. 

Due to  applying Art. 13(1)(b), the  five FRMPs assessed did  not  physically include summary 
maps showing individual APSFRs or other flood risk areas. For the same reason, none of the 

FRMPs assessed included a textual description or tables listing any APSFRs.  

All five FRMPs assessed contain links to online map portals showing flood risk areas.21 The 
two FRMPs assessed in Flanders include a link to maps of flood risk areas, which are: natural 

inundation  areas  (NOG),  recently  inundated  areas  (ROG)  and  inundation  areas  based  upon 
models (MOG)22. The FRMPs assessed in Wallonia include links to maps of flood areas and 
maps of flood risks23. The Brussels-Capital FRMP includes a link to maps of flood areas and 
flood risks24 25. 

No reference to conveyance routes was found in the FRMPs assessed.26 

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

All  five  FRMPs  assessed  refer  to  coordination  with  neighbouring  Member  States  on  shared 
RBDs/UoMs.27  The  FRMPs  state  that  this  was  organised  within  the  respective  international 

20   See, for example Flanders-Scheldt FRMP: p.103, Brussels-Scheldt: p.193. 
21   FRMP  BESchelde_VL,  chapter  2.1.4,  p101;  FRMP  BEEscaut_RW,  chapter  1,  p63  and  FRMP 

BEEscaut_Schelde_BR: “Overstromingsgevaarkaart”, chapter 2.5.2.  

22   https://www.waterinfo.be/default.aspx?path=NL/Loketten/geoloket.  Belgium  subsequently  explained  that 
these  maps  are  pre-existing  that  the  online  portal  combines  all  information  on  floods,  including  all  existing 
flood maps and the FHRMs for the FD. 
23   http://geoportail.wallonie.be/home.html  
24   http://geoportal.ibgebim.be/webgis/Overstroming_kaart.phtml  
25   RBMP BESchelde_VL, p103;FRMP BERhin_RW, p.23 and RBMP BESchelde_VL, p.189. 
26   RBMP BESchelde_VL; RBMP BEMaas_RW; FRMP BERhin_RW; FRMP BEEscautSchelde_BR.  

16 

 
 
                                                 
commissions for the Meuse, Scheldt and Rhine river basins. For the Scheldt, coordination took 
place  with  France  and  the  Netherlands.  For  the  Meuse,  coordination  took  place  with  France, 

Germany,  Luxembourg  and  the  Netherlands.  However,  no  specific  information  was  found  in 
the FRMPs on how coordination activities were organised. None of the five FRMPs assessed 

mention APSFRs shared with neighbouring Member States. 

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

As mentioned earlier, a PFRA under the FD was not performed in Belgium. The FRMP for the 

Brussels  Scheldt  UoM  reports  that  the  FHR  maps  developed  in  2013  used  data  from  earlier 
assessments, including a rough localisation of flood damage in built-up areas. The 2013 FHR 
map was more accurate than the previous ones and included non-built areas as well.28 

In  Wallonia  a  flood  hazard  map  which  covers  the  entire  territory  has  already  existed  since 
2007. The development of the FHRMs was therefore based on these maps29. 

No information was found in the reporting sheets or the FRMPs assessed for Flanders on the 
use of a preliminary flood risk analysis for the FHRMs.  

2.2 

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

The Belgian FRMPs provide links to flood hazard and flood risk maps developed at regional 
level30. These links are:  

 

Brussels: http://www.leefmilieu.brussels/ 

https://environnement.brussels/thematiques/eau/leau-bruxelles/eau-de-pluie-

et-inondation/cartes-inondations-pour-la-region 

  Flanders: http://www.waterinfo.be/default.aspx?path=NL/Loketten/geoloket 

The  information  provided  via  this  link  includes  information  on  inundated  areas,  water 
depth, coastal currents and rise velocity.  

  Wallonia: http://geoportail.wallonie.be  

The FRMP for the Brussels Scheldt UoM contains a map with historical inundation data and 
the FHRMs31. The FRMPs assessed in Wallonia and Flanders do not contain FHRMs.  

27  Belgium  noted subsequently that the regular and  systematic  internal Belgian coordination  for environmental 
policy, takes place within the Coordination Committee for International Environmental Policy (CCIEP). The 
CCIEP  Working  Group  on  Water  coordinates  the  WFD  (and  related  Directives)  and  the  FD.  In  addition  to 
multilateral  coordination,  bilateral  coordination  meetings  are  also  held  between  the  regions,  for  example  on 
water quantity management in the Interregional Consultation group on Inland Waterways. 

28   FRMP  BEEscautSchelde_BR, 

figure  2.64: 

“Methode  gebruikt  voor  de  opstelling  van  de 

overstromingsgevaarkaarten”, p.289. 
 E.g. Carte d’aléa d’inondation) (p.81-Ch 2-§3.2. Aléa d’inondation– PGRI_ESCAUT_20160304.pdf 

29 
30  FRMP  BESchelde_VL,  2.1.4.2  “Overstromingsgevaarkaarten”,  p104;  FRMP  BEEscaut_RW,  6.1 

“Référencement des cartes et accès en ligne’’, p.100. 

17 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

As  noted  above,  none  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  identify  flood  risk  areas  shared  with  other 
Member States.  

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

All  five  FRMPs  assessed  state  that  the  FHRMs  have  been  used  in  the  development  of  the 
plans. Based on the reporting sheets and the FRMPs assessed, for all UoMs: 

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

activities, assets)  

  Measures were defined based on the FHRMs. 

For the Flanders FRMPs assessed, the FHRMs provide details on locations at risk (e.g. number 

of  inhabitants  at  risk):  this  information  was  included  in  the  multicriteria  analysis  to  identify 
priority  measures.  For  the  Brussels  FRMP,  the  indicative  number  of  potentially  affected 

inhabitants is included in the FHRM with, for each flood category (high, medium, low or non-
existent  risk),  a  presentation  of  the  indicative  number  of  potentially  affected  inhabitants  by 

district. This number is represented in different pie charts on the map. Nonetheless, the FRMPs 
do not describe the link between the FHRMs and the setting of objectives. 

The FRMP for the Flanders Scheldt UoM (BEScheldt_VL) includes  Belgium’s coastline and 
considers flooding from the sea in the coastal area. 

2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

The  assessment  looked  for  information  on  changes  in  the  identification  of  APSFRs  since 

December 2011, or in the FHRMs since December 2013.  

The FRMPs did not indicate any changes to the APSFRs.32 The online FHRMs for Flanders, 
Brussels  and  Wallonia33  have  nonetheless  been  regularly  updated:  for  example,  in  Flanders, 
there were updates of the online maps in 2014 and 2017 with the inclusion of new information 
on  flood  events.  In  Brussels,  the  most  recent  map  included  data  and  information  that  had  a 

finer resolution and was more accurate in the identification of extent of flood events.  

31  FRMP Brussels, p.19 on: maps 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.23 
32  FRMP  BESchelde_VL;  FRMP  BEMaas_VL;  FRMP  BERhin_RW;  FRMP  BEEscaut_RW; 

BEEscautSchelde_BR.   

33  Online maps have been updated in 2016 on the Geoportal of Wallonia: 

http://geoportail.wallonie.be/catalogue/89e93887-bc8c-4409-809d-ec53a0986023.html  

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
 
2.4 

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

The  prior  FHRM  assessment34  identified  the  following  areas  for  further  development  for 
Belgium: 

  According  to  Article  6(3)  of  the  FD,  flood  hazard  maps  should  cover  the  geographical 
areas  which  could  be  flooded  according  to  the  following  scenarios:  low  probability, 
medium probability (likely return period 100 years or more) and high probability, where 

appropriate. It appears that Brussels used 25-50 years as medium probability scenario. 

  There  is  no  clear  distinction  among  flood  sources  in  the  FHRMs  of  Brussels  and 

Flanders. 

  For  the  Brussels  Scheldt  UoM,  according  to  the  FHRM  assessment,  the  flood  risk  and 
hazard  maps  did  not  show  water  depth  or  level,  nor  the  number  of  inhabitants  which 
could be potentially affected35, and climate change was not been included in the analysis.  

Two of these areas for further development  have been partially addressed within the FRMPs 
assessed: 

 

In  all  the  FRMPs,  maps  with  low,  medium  and  high  probability  have  been  provided 

either in the document itself or as separate annexes (e.g. for the Flanders Scheldt UoM, 
BESchelde_VL,  as  a  separate  Annex  to  the  plan)  or  as  a  links.  Wallonia  amended  the 

medium probability scenario to 100 years, in line with the Directive.  

  For the Brussels  Scheldt UoM (BEEscautSchelde_BR), the flood risk and hazard maps 
now indicate the number of inhabitants that could be potentially affected by the flood.  

Nonetheless,  as  of  April  2018,  the  FHRMs  for  Brussels  and  Flanders  did  not  make  a  clear 
distinction among flood sources36; and the FHRMs for the Brussels Scheldt UoM did not show 
water depth or level. The FHRMs for the region of Brussels-Capital still consider 25-50 years 
for the medium probability scenario37. 

34   European  Commission,  Assessment  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps  –  Member  State  Report:  BE  – 

Belgium, December 2014. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/BE%20FHRM%20Report.pdf   

35   Belgium  informed  subsequently  that  for  the  Brussels  Scheldt  UoM,  the  indicative  number  of  potentially 
affected inhabitants was included already from December 2013. For each flood category (high, medium, low 
or  non-existent  risk),  an  indicative  number  of  potentially  affected  inhabitants  is  presented  by  district.  This 
number  is  represented  in  different  pie  charts  on  the  map.  The  number  of  inhabitants  was  also  reported  in 
WISE. 

36   Belgium noted subsequently that this will be changed for Flanders in the next cycle of implementation. 
37   Belgium  subsequently  recalled  that  for  the  Brussels  region  the  most  important  source  of  flooding  is  pluvial 
floods  (e.g.  sewers  flooding  cellars).  It  is  believed  that  the  medium  probability  for  pluvial  floods  should 
correspond to a return period of less than 100 years, which is more applicable for fluvial floods. 

19 

 
 
                                                 
 
2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The  plan  for  the  Brussels  Scheldt  UoM  includes  an  overview  of  historical  data  on  flood 

damage and flood events. 

 

In Flanders, there were updates to the online FHRMs in 2014 and 2017 with the inclusion 
of  new  information  on  flood  events.  Online  maps  have  been  updated  in  2016  on  the 
Geoportal of Wallonia38. In Brussels as well, the online FHRMs were updated.  

38   http://geoportail.wallonie.be/catalogue/89e93887-bc8c-4409-809d-ec53a0986023.html  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3. Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

In Belgium, FRMP objectives are set at regional level.  

The  Region  of  Flanders  has  set  an  overarching  objective39  for  the  “Sustainable  reduction  of 
flood  risk  with  sufficient  protection  for  people,  economic  activity,  ecology  and  cultural 

heritage”. Flanders moreover aims to reduce flood risks in the following sub-objective areas: 

 

inland navigation; 

  ecology; 

  water supply; 

  water management and safety.  

The Region of Wallonia has set a strategic objective to limit to the maximum degree harm to 

persons  and  property,  reducing  negative  impacts  on  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural 
heritage and economic activity. The Region moreover has set six strategic objectives40:  

1.  Improve knowledge of flood risk; 
2.  Decrease and slow down water runoff on watersheds; 
3.  Develop  river  beds  and  floodplains  while  respecting  and  promoting  natural  habitats 

which guarantee stability; 

4.  Decrease vulnerability to flooding in flood-prone areas; 
5.  Develop emergency plans and improve crisis management in case of flood. 
6.  Mitigate the societal and financial burden of damage  

The FRMP for the Escaut UoM then set specific objectives for its sub-basins. These include, 

for  example,  for  the  Dendre  River  basin:  limiting  overflows,  in  particular  in  the  town  of 
Lessines; and promoting coordination with the Flanders Region.  

The  region  of  Brussels-Capital  set  one  strategic  objective,  to  reduce  harm  to  inhabitants, 

buildings and infrastructure. This strategic objective is further specified in four sub-objectives.  

1.  Reduce the occurrence and extent of flooding in the region (O.S.5.1) 
2.  Reduce  the  vulnerability  of  buildings  or  infrastructures  located  in  flood  risk  areas 

(prevention) (O.S.5.2) 

39   Overarching objective: “Sustainable reduction of flood risk in Flanders with sufficient protection for people, 
economic activity, ecology and cultural heritage”. This can be done by reducing the flood risks determined by 
likelihood  and  damage.  In  doing  so,  An  optimal  combination  of  protective,  preventive  and  preparedness 
measures is taken into account, so that the residual risk is reduced to a socially acceptable level. In doing so, at 
least  the  effects  of  autonomous  development  resulting  from  climate  change  and  land  use  change  shall  be 
addressed  through  measures  aimed  at  maximising  cost-efficiency,  taking  into  account  benefits  for  people, 
economic activities, ecology and cultural heritage.” 

40   p.107 Chap3§1 objectif généraux – PGRI_ESCAUT_20160304.pdf  

21 

 
 
                                                 
3.  Ensure crisis management and promote safeguard measures (O.S.5.3) 
4.  Ensure post-crisis management and return to normal state (O.S.5.4). 

Consequently, in the FRMPs assessed41: 

 

 

In  all  three  regions  (and  all  five  FRMPs  assessed),  the  objectives  aim  to  reduce  the 
adverse consequences of floods;  

In the Brussels Region, the objectives refer directly to the reduction in the likelihood of 
flooding42;  this  theme  is  addressed  indirectly  in  the  objectives  of  the  Flanders  Region 
(which calls for the reduction of flood risk overall) and the Walloon Region (which calls 

for river bed and floodplain initiatives that should reduce flood likelihood);  

 

In  two  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  those  for  the  Walloon  Region  and  the  Brussels 

region,  the  objectives  refer  to  non-structural  initiatives  (crisis  management  and  post-
flooding management). 

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

In  Flanders,  there  is  a  framework  for  flood  risk  assessment  that  allows  an  estimation  of  the 
flood risk based on the severity of the consequences in relation to the likelihood of flooding. 

This  framework  allows  a  link  with  the  sub-objectives,  which  are  measurable  and  specific; 
indicators are identified for the sub-objectives. For example, in the FRMP Scheldt43, the sub-
objective for water management and safety is to achieve a sustainable or sustained reduction in 
the number of people affected and in the economic risks resulting from floods; it is linked to 

indicators  for  the  number  of  people  affected  by  floods  and  the  damages  caused  by  floods. 
Targets for the sub-objectives, however, are not set out in the FRMPs, but are found in the sub-

basin plans.  

In  the  Brussels  Region,  more  detailed  operational  objectives  are  set  (these  operational 
objectives  are  reported  in  the  overview  of  the  PoM,  not  in  the  description  of  the  objective 

itself).  The  operational  objectives  are  in  turn  linked  to  sub-actions,  which  set  out  specific 
information (who will undertake what activities and where).    

In the Walloon Region, the FRMPs include specific objectives, which can refer to actions to be 
taken at local level: many of these are specific and measurable.   

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

In  the  FRMPs  assessed  and  in  all  three  Belgian  regions,  objectives  call  for  the  reduction  of 
adverse consequences from floods. 

41   These categories are included in Art. 7 of the FD. 
42   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. 

43   FRMP Scheldt, section 3.1.6.2. 

22 

 
 
                                                 
3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

In  the  Brussels  Region,  as  noted  above,  the  objectives  refer  directly  to  the  reduction  in  the 

likelihood of flooding.  

In  the  Flanders  Region  the  overall  objective  calls  for  a  sustainable  reduction  of  flood  risk 
determined  by  likelihood  and  damage,  thus  incorporating  reduction  of  the  likelihood  of 
flooding44.  

In the Walloon Region, the operational objectives for river beds and floodplains should reduce 
flood likelihoods. 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

As  noted,  the  objectives  were  coordinated  and  set  at  regional  level.  In  the  Flanders  Region, 

coordination  among  government  departments  took  place  within  the  regional  Coordination 
Committee on Integrated Water Policy (Coordinatiecommissie Integraal Waterbeheer), which 
brings  together  regional  bodies  as  well  as  the  associations  of  Flemish  provinces  and 
municipalities.  

Although  there  are  coordination  mechanisms  in  place  among  the  three  regions,  including  at 

national level within the national coordination platform on water (overlegplatform water), the 
FRMPs  do  not  indicate  if  inter-regional  coordination  took  place  on  the  setting  of  objectives 
(based  on  the  objectives  themselves,  it  does  not  appear  so)  45.  It  is  reported  in  the  Flanders 
FRMPs that this  coordination will be strengthened and deepened in  the next  reporting cycle; 

moreover,  there  are  also  references  to  greater  coordination  in  the  Walloon  FRMPs  –  for 
example,  as  noted  above,  a  specific  objective  in  one  sub-basin  of  the  Walloon  Escaut  UoM 

calls for greater inter-regional coordination.  

According  to  the  FRMPs  assessed,  potential  effects  of  climate  change  on  floods  were  taken 
into account but this is not explicitly described nor set out in the objectives themselves.  

44   Belgium  subsequently  informed  that  in  the  Flanders  Region  the  overarching  objective  is  the  sustainable 
reduction  of  flood  risk  in  Flanders  with  sufficient  protection  for  people,  economic  activity,  ecology  and 
cultural heritage. This can be done by reducing the flood risks determined by likelihood and damage. In doing 
so, an optimal combination of protective, preventive and preparedness measures is taken into account, so that 
the residual risk is reduced to a socially acceptable level. 

45   Belgium noted subsequently that all three regions have shared their methodologies, but for various reasons it 
was decided that each region should make the best use of the information available to it instead of applying a 
least  common  denominator  approach.  For  example,  in  the  Brussels  Region,  floods  caused  by  sewers  (or 
pluvial floods) was the most important source of flooding (far more than fluvial floods) and it was decided to 
apply a methodology that could cope with this source of flooding. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
In  all three regions,  proposed objectives were discussed with  stakeholders (see section 7).  In 
Wallonia,  specific  objectives  by  sub-basin  have  been  defined  in  the  Technical  Committees 
with water stakeholders46. 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The  strategic  objective  for  the  Brussels  Scheldt  UoM  is  elaborated  via  detailed 
operational objectives; these in turn are linked to sub-actions, each of them is explained 
in specific terms: who, what, where. 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The  FRMPs  should  better  describe  coordination47  among  Belgium’s  three  regions  on 
objectives, particularly in shared river basins such as the Scheldt, which crosses all three 

regions. 

46   FRMP Escaut, p. 109. 
47   Belgium subsequently informed that there was, for example in the case of the Scheldt river basin, coordination 
at the level of the International Scheldt Commission as indicated in the document “Overkoepelend deel van het 
overstromingsrisicobeheerplan voor het internationale scheldestroomgebiedsdistrict / Partie faîtière du plan 
de  gestion  des  risque  d’inondation  du  district  hydrographique  international  de  l’Escaut”  http://www.isc-
cie.org/images/Documents/ODB1-PFPG1_ROR-DRI_def.pdf.  

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Belgium has reported a total of 668 measures, of which 184 are aggregated48 measures and 484 
are individual measures49.  

For  the  Brussels  Regions,  25  measures  were  reported  for  the  one  UoM.  For  the  Flanders 
Region,  23  measures  were  reported  in  two  UoMs  (13  in  the  Scheldt  FRMP  and  10  in  the 

Meuse  FRMP).  For  the  Walloon  Region,  620  measures  were  reported  across  four  UoMs. 
While  the  FRMPs  do  not  explain  the  large  difference  in  the  number  of  measures  across  the 

three  regions,  it  can  be  noted  that  the  measures  in  the  Flanders  region  represent  aggregated 
activities  which  are  further  specified  in  the  plans  via  individual  actions50.  Consequently,  the 
number of measures cannot be compared across regions.  

For all three regions, both aggregated and individual measures are reported. None of the five 

FRMPs  assessed,  however,  provided  a  definition  of  aggregated  or  individual  measures. 
Nonetheless,  for  the  FRMPs  in  Brussels  and  Walloon  Regions,  the  aggregated  measures  are 

overarching actions that cover a whole UoM. The aggregated measures for Flanders generally 
fall into the categories of prevention and preparedness and are applied on a regional basis; in 
contrast,  the individual measures are  generally protection measures and are location-specific, 

typically on the scale of single water bodies. 

Across the five FRMPs assessed, the measures cover all four aspects of flood risk management 
as  well  as  “other”  and  “no  action”  measures51.  The  share  of  measures  varies  across  the  five 
FRMPs assessed: in four of the five, protection measures represent the largest share, but in the 

Walloon  Rhine  FRMP,  prevention  measures  have  the  largest  share.  For  all  five  FRMPs, 
recovery and review measures represent the smallest shares.   

  Brussels  Scheldt  FRMP  (BEEscautSchelde_BR):  seven  prevention  measures  (28  %);  10 
protection (40 %); three preparedness and three recovery and review (12 % each); two no 
action (8 %) 

48  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. 

49   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. 

50   Belgium subsequently noted that, following the  Regional competences, different approaches have been used 

by the Regions to set up the PoM.  

51   See Annex B for a definition of measure types and measure aspects. 

25 

 
 
                                                 
  Flanders  Scheldt  FRMP  (BESchelde_VL):  three  prevention  measures  (21  %);  six 
protection measures (46 %); two preparedness measures (15 %); one recovery and review 
measure and one other measure (8 % each) 

  Flanders Meuse FRMP (BEMaas_VL): three prevention measures (30 %); four protection 

measures (40 %); two preparedness measures (20 %); one other (10 %) 

  Walloon Rhine FRMP (BERhin_RW): 33 prevention measures (55 %); 14 protection (23 

%); 10 preparedness (17 %); three recovery and review (5%) 

  Walloon Scheldt FRMP (BEEscaut_RW): 62 prevention measures (31 %); 122 protection 

(60 %); 16 preparedness (8 %); three recovery and review (1 %) 

4.1 

Cost of measures 

Table 6 Estimated overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMPs 

UoM code 

BERhin_RW 

BEEscaut_RW 

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

150.000 to 400.000 

40 m (+/- 30%) 

Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs 

The  FRMPs  assessed  in  the  Walloon  and  Brussels  regions  contain  the  following  budget 
information (see also the table above):  

  For the Walloon Scheldt UoM (BEEscaut_RW), an overall budget of €40 m is estimated 
with an uncertainty of 30 %. This estimate includes investment costs but does not include 

operational costs. 

  For  the  Walloon  Rhine  UoM  (BERhin_RW),  the  overall  budget  is  an  even  wider 
estimate (€150.000 to €400.000). This estimate also includes investment costs but does 
not include the operational costs. 

  For the Brussels Scheldt UoM (BEEscaut_Schelde_BR), a cost estimate for a maximum 
and  efficient  scenario  for  all  measures  (i.e.  both  RBMP  and  FRMP  measures)  is 

presented, however, a separate estimate of costs for FRMP measures has not been found.  

  For  Flanders,  cost  information  is  available  in  separate  fact  sheets,  available  online,  for 
each  measure52.  The  FRMPs  for  the  Flanders  Region,  which  are  combined  with  the 
RBMPs,  contain  overall  budget  figures  for  water  management  on  a  regional  scale, 
however, a separate overview of the costs of flood measures is not provided. 

4.2 

Funding of measures 

The  plans  for  Brussels  contain  an  analysis  of  the  different  users  of  water  and  cost  recovery 
systems  for  the  2010  to  2015  cycle  (i.e.  the  first  RBMP  cycle).  Beyond  this  generic 

52 http://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/nl/geoloket/overzicht-acties 

26 

 
 
                                                 
information, the FRMPs do not provide further information available on recovery of costs for 
flood measures53. For Flanders, separate fact sheets indicate the specific financing sources for 
each measure. The two Walloon FRMPs assessed state that implementation of measures will 
depend on available funds at the regional, provincial and town level (the FRMPs also refer to 

other sources of funding without specifying what these may be). 

In sum, the following information is provided on the funding of measures54: 

BEMaas_VL 

BESchelde
_VL 

BERhin_RW 

BEEscaut
_RW 

BEEscaut_
Schelde_B
R 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Table 7 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 

Source: FRMPs 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

The FRMPs assessed for the regions of Flanders55 and Brussels-Capital do not include a clear 
and explicit description of the measures with regard to:  

  What they are trying to achieve, 

  Where they are to be achieved, 

  How they are to be achieved, and 

  By when they are expected to be achieved. 

53   Belgium  subsequently  informed  that  for  Flanders,  this  information  can  be  found  on  a  separate  webpage: 

http://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/nl/geoloket/overzicht-acties. 

54   RBMP  BESchelde_VL;  RBMP  BEMaas_VL;  FRMP  BERhin_RW,  p.157;  FRMP  BEEscaut_RW,  p.157; 

RBMP BEEscautSchelde_BR. 

55   Flanders subsequently indicated that this information is available for all detailed actions on the following web 

page: http://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/nl/geoloket/overzicht-acties. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The FRMPS for Wallonia do include the first three of these elements; however, there is not a 
clear description of when the measures are expected to be achieved in the FRMPs assessed.   

All five FRMPs across the three regions provide an overview of the locations indicated for the 
measures: 

Table 8 Location of measures  

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk area  

Water body level  

More detailed than water body 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

4.4  Measures and objectives 

Source: FRMPs 

Across  all  five  FRMPs  assessed,  it  is  not  clear  how  measures  will  contribute  to  the 
achievement  of  objectives,  nor  clear  by  how  much  they  will  contribute.  It  is  also  not  clear 
whether the objectives will be achieved when all measures are completed.56   

In Flanders, the FRMPs set out sub-objectives that are specific and measurable and are linked 
to  indicators  and  an  assessment  framework  (see  section  3).  The  link  between  the  objectives, 

measures and the assessment framework is not described in the FRMP.  

As noted in section 3, the objectives of the Walloon and Brussels FRMPs are neither specific 
nor measurable.  In the plan for the  Brussels  Scheldt UoM, however, the  general objective is 

further detailed in terms of operational objectives and sub-actions, and measures are linked to 
these.   

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

Belgium  reported  the  location  of  implementation  of  measures  for  all  measures  and  the 
geographic coverage of the impact of measures for around half of the measures.  

Nonetheless,  in  all  three  regions,  the  location  of  the  measures  is  either  regional  (for  general 
measures) or localised (a specific location within an UoM).  

56   FRMP BE_Rhin_RW; RBMP BE_EscautSchelde_BR, FRMP BE_Schelde_VL; FRMP_Maas.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  parallel,  the  measures  have  either  a  regional  geographic  coverage  (for  general  measures 
implemented at the regional level and exerting an effect on the regional level) or their coverage 

is a water body itself (for localised, specific measures). 

For Flanders, the measures reported for the Meuse and Scheldt FRMPs can be categorised as 

follows in terms of geographical coverage: 

  There  are  general  measures  relevant  for  the  whole  region  or  for  Meuse  and  Scheldt 

UoMs as a whole; 

  For the Flanders Scheldt FRMP, there are measures located in the coastal zone and along 
water bodies under tidal influence (Scheldt estuary and tributaries of the Scheldt – these 
are part of the prior Sigma Plan to protect the Scheldt estuary from seawater flooding); 

  There are measures for non-tidal water bodies. 

Wallonia  applied  a  simple  distribution  of  its  measures  with:  global  measures  (at  the  level  of 
Wallonia); general measures at provincial or municipal level (or another localised part of the 

territory);  and  local  measures  whose  location  is  identified  precisely  in  terms  of  territorial 
coordinates57. 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

All  three  Belgian  regions  prioritised  their  measures  –  however,  the  breakdown  of  priorities 
varies across the three: 

 

 

 

In Brussels, seven measures were categorised as very high priority (28 %), five as high 
priority (20 %), six as moderate priority (24 %) and seven as low priority (28 %). 

In  the  two  UoMs  of  the  Flanders  Region,  20  measures  are  categorised  as  high  priority 
(87 %) and three as moderate priority (13 %)58.  
In  the  four  UoMs  of  the  Walloon  Region,  183  out  of  620  measures  were  identified  as 

critical priority (30 %), 189 as very high priority (30 %) and another 189 as low priority 
(30 %), with no information provided for the remaining 59 measures (10 %)59.  

According to the FRMPs assessed in Flanders, measures in this region were prioritised using 

multi-criteria  analysis.  The  criteria  considered  include:  cost-effectiveness,  feasibility,  social 
acceptance, coherence with other actions, including those under the WFD, and urgency. 

57   See p.126 Chap4§1.3– PGRI_ESCAUT_20160304.pdf 
58   Flanders subsequently informed that prioritisation is done at the level of individual actions. The measures are 
an aggregation of these actions. Because almost every aggregated  measure has  several  high priority actions, 
almost all  measures are assigned a high priority.  The priorities given to the individual actions show a  much 
larger  diversity.  For  the  Scheldt  UoM:  128  high,  120  moderate  and  42  low  priority  actions.  For  the  Meuse 
UoM: 14 high, 8 moderate and 10 low priority actions. 

59   Belgium subsequently clarified that these measures are studies to improve knowledge. 

29 

 
 
                                                 
For  the  FRMPs  in  Wallonia,  measures  were  prioritised  in  three  steps:  first,  a  multicriteria 
analysis of the measures; second, an analysis of the results of this prioritisation and, eventually, 

adaptation by stakeholders within technical committees by sub-basin; and third, validation of 
prioritisation  by  the  coordination  team,  the  Transversal  Floods  Group  (GTI)”  (Groupe 
Transversal  Inondations60).  The  multicriteria  analysis  took  into  consideration  the  following 
criteria: 

  human health (number of people affected); 

  economic activities at risks; 

  synergies identified with other water management plans, including the RBMPs and plans 

for economic activities, e.g. transport on water and related infrastructure; 

  environmental aspects (synergies or conflicts of interest); 

  cultural aspects. 

In  the  Brussels  Region,  the  FRMP  reports  that  measures  were  prioritised  on  the  basis  of  the 

criteria  of  protection,  prevention  and  preparedness;  however,  further  information  is  not 
provided.  

For  the  Flanders  and  Wallonia  FRMPs  assessed,  the  timetable  for  the  implementation  of  the 

measures is not provided within the FRMPs. The Brussels FRMP includes an overall timetable 
of measures61  linked to  their priority:  Priority 1 measures should be implemented in  the first 
years of the Plan (2016-2017);  Priority 2 measures  in  2018-2019;  and the implementation  of 
Priority 3 measures should start by 2021 (2020-2021). 

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

For both the regions of Flanders and Wallonia, water management is organised depending on 
the category of the water. Accordingly, there are five levels:  

  authorities responsible for navigable waters (regional bodies); 

 

regional authorities; 

  provinces; 

 

towns 

  unclassified watercourses, managed by local residents.  

Belgium  reported  on  the  responsible  authorities  for  all  of  its  measures.  In  all  three  regions, 

regional bodies are responsible for a large share of measures: 

60   Details (p.113 Chap4§1.1– PGRI_ESCAUT_20160304.pdf 
61   Details on p.435 of the RMBP.    

30 

 
 
                                                 
 

In  Brussels,  regional  bodies  are  responsible  for  22  of  the  25  measures  (88  %)  and 
municipal authorities for five measures (20 %)62. 

  For the two UoMs in Flanders, regional authorities are indicated for 10 measures of the 
23  measures  (43  %),  multiple  authorities  for  12  (52  %)  and  other  authorities  for  one 
measure (4 %).  

  For the four UoMs in  Wallonia, regional authorities are responsible for 320 of the 620 
measures reported (52 %), provincial authorities for 81 (13 %), municipal authorities for 

192 (31 %), sub-RBD authorities for 23 (4%) and other authorities for four measures (1 
%).  

See tables A11 and A12 and Figures A9 and A10 in Annex A for further details. 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

Belgium  has  reported  on  the  process  of  implementation  of  all  its  measures.  There  are 

differences among the three regions, with the majority of measures in Flanders ongoing and the 
majority of those in Brussels and Wallonia not started.  

 

In Brussels, three of the 25 measures are reported as ongoing construction (12 %), seven 

as process ongoing (28 %) and 15 not started (60 %); 

  For  the  two  UoMs  in  Flanders,  12  of  the  23  measures  are  reported  as  ongoing 

construction (52 %), nine as process ongoing (39 %) and two as not started (9 %);  

  For  the  four  UoMs  in  Wallonia,  195  of  620  measures  are  reported  as  ongoing 

construction (31 %) and 425 as not started (69 %). 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

Member States were asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure has 

been  implemented:  Belgium  did  not  report  on  this  (though  it  did  provide  information  under 
‘any other information’ – see Annex A). 

For Flanders, the FRMPs and RBMPs for the Scheldt UoM (BE_Schelde_VL) and the Meuse 
UoM (BE_Maas_VL) are included in one document and coordinated. The PoM for the FRMP 

and the RBMP is provided as a single list, with the measures under the FRMP being grouped 
under a specific group63. 

None of the five FRMPs assessed contain references to measures taken under the Seveso or the 

EIA Directives. 

62   It appears that both regional and municipal authorities are indicated for two of the 25 measures in Brussels. 
63   Groep (Group) 6: overstromingen, floods. 

31 

 
 
 
                                                 
4.10  Specific groups of measures 

With  regard  to  spatial  planning/land  use  measures,  all  five  FRMPs  assessed  include 
measures under type 21 to prevent new development in flood prone areas64.  

Both  FRMPs  assessed  in  Flanders  and  the  Wallonia  Scheldt  FRMP  each  contained  one 
measure under type 22 to remove receptors from flood prone areas65. 

Among  the  specific  measures,  the  Brussels  Scheldt  FRMP  includes  a  measure  to  avoid 

building in flood sensitive areas. The Flanders FRMPs assessed include the following measure: 
avoiding new flood risk sensitive developments, to keep flood areas free from buildings and to 

build,  where  appropriate,  buildings  that  are  resistant  to  flooding.  In  Wallonia,  there  are 
measures  related  to  building  permits:  obligatory  advice  from  regional  and  provincial 

authorities for parcels of land subject to flooding.  

NWRM have been planned in all five FRMPs assessed.  

Among the measures identified: 

 

In the Brussels Scheldt FRMP (BEEscautSchelde_BR), measures include: restoration of 
rivers66, restoration of floodplains67, aquifer restoration68 and urban measures  including 
permeable surfaces, retention basins and ponds and infiltration basins69. 

  For  the  Flanders  Scheldt  FRMP  (BESchelde_VL):  Buffer  strips70,  restoration  of 

wetlands71 and the restoration of rivers72.  

  The  two  Walloon  FRMPs  assessed  (BERhin_RW  and  BEEscaut_RW)  included  urban 
measures,  for  example  to  take  into  consideration  rain  water  retention  in  development 
projects,  agriculture  measures  such  as  soil  conservation  and  river  restoration  and 

floodplain  restoration.  (Due  to  the  brief  descriptions  of  the  measures  it  has  not  been 
possible to link the measures to specific NWRM codes.) 

Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. All five FRMPs assessed take into 

account  nature conservation  (for example, citing  Natura 2000 areas), but  in  the Brussels  and 
Flanders  FRMPs  assessed,  an  explicit  link  to  nature  conservation  in  the  flood  risk  measures 

64   Specifically: Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood 

prone areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation. 

65   Specifically:  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. 

66   NWRM measure types: N04 Re-meandering, N05 Stream bed re-naturalisation. 
67   NWRM measure type N03 Floodplain restoration and management. 
68   NWRM measure type N13 Restoration of natural infiltration to groundwater.   
69   Including  NWRM  measure  types  U03  Permeable  surfaces,  U06  Filter  Strips,  U10  Detention  Basins,  U11 

Retention Ponds and U12 Infiltration basins.   

70   Corresponding to NWRM measure type A02, Buffer strips and hedges.   
71   Corresponding to NWRM measure type N02 Wetland restoration and management.   
72   NWRM  measure  types:  N04  Re-meandering,  N05  Stream  bed  re-naturalisation,  N06  Restoration  and 

reconnection of seasonal streams, N07 Reconnection of oxbow lakes and similar features.   

32 

 
 
                                                 
themselves is not provided73, 74. The Walloon Meuse FRMP (BEMeuse_RW) contains a flood 
risk measure where nature conservation is clearly cited (a measure for river restoration). 

Four of the five FRMPs assessed make a brief reference that they shall take into consideration 
navigation  and  port  infrastructure.  In  Wallonia,  for  example,  the  FRMP  for  the  Scheldt 

UoM  states  that  shipping  on  this  river  is  taken  into  consideration.  The  plan  for  the  Brussels 
Scheldt UoM does not refer to shipping; however, at least one measure is indirectly related to it 
(optimising the shipping canal in Brussels for receiving run-off water)75.  

The five FRMPs assessed include planning of dredging to increase the river channel capacity 
and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation purposes.  

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The  FRMPs  state  that  properties  in  flood  risk  areas  will  not  be  covered  by  insurance.  The 
Flanders FRMPs assessed refer to the 2014 revision of a 2006 national law on insurance that 

gives  insurance  companies  the  right  to  refuse  coverage  for  properties  in  flood  risk  zones.  In 
this  regard,  the  flood  risk  maps  for  Wallonia  and  Flanders76  have  legal  value  in  terms  of 
designating flood risk zones; the FRMP for Flanders explains that insurers have the right not to 
insure new homes located in flood risk zones against flooding. This is not the case yet for the 

Brussels  region,  where  maps  only  have  an  indicative  value;  however,  the  Brussels  Scheldt 
UoM includes a measure to prepare a map that will identify risk zones under the 2014 national 
legislation77.  

For the Walloon FRMPs assessed, insurance is mentioned in the discussion of objectives – one 
of the operational objectives calls for the promotion of the insurability of properties – and may 

be related to a measure on sharing flood costs (Mutualiser les coûts liés aux inondations).  

The  FRMPs  do  not  provide  information  whether  insurance  is  conditional  on  making  at-risk 

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

installations.  

73   BESchelde_VL  and  BEMaas_VL,  Chpt  Summary  of  the  Objectives;  BEEscautSchelde_BR:  summary 
document,  e.g.  Chpt:  Summary  of  the  Development;  BERhin_RW  and  BEEscaut_RW:  summary  document, 
e.g. Chpt.Summary of objectives. 

74   Belgium subsequently indicated that further information for the detailed actions in Flanders is available on the 
following  webpage:  http://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/nl/geoloket/overzicht-acties.  There,  a  total  overview 
of all actions (i.e. specific, detailed measures) in the PoM can be found. This contains detailed information for 
(almost) all actions, including those located within protected areas. 

75   Belgium  subsequently  informed  that  for  this  measure  in  the  Brussels  FRMP,  shipping  itself  is  not  relevant; 

however this action requires discussion with the Port Authority to assess what is relevant and possible. 

76   Belgium  informed  subsequently  that  insurance  is  a  federal  competence.  The  Flemish  map  delineating  flood 
risk areas with regards to the insurance law is a pre-existing flood map, not an FHRM under the FD; however, 
there is coordination between the two maps to ensure consistency. 

77   Measure 5.15: p. 448 of the FRMP  

33 

 
 
                                                 
4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

The  FRMPs  assessed  in  all  three  regions  provide  information  on  the  process  for  monitoring 

progress.  

The  FRMPs  applicable  to  the  region  of  Wallonia  state  that  each  authority  is  responsible  for 
monitoring progress. A set of parameters needs to be tracked, including progress (not started, 

in progress, finished, not implemented). The progress will be monitored twice during the six-
year  cycle:  2017  and  201978.  The  assembled  data  on  progress  will  be  examined  by  the 
technical committees in each sub-basin. 

For the region of Flanders, the Water Uitvoerings Programma (Water Execution Programme) 
is a monitoring programme that is executed on a yearly basis. It assembles the input provided 

by the authorities responsible for monitoring, planning and amendments to their work plans. It 
is not indicated in the reporting sheets which parameters on the measures will be monitored79. 

In  the  Brussels  Region,  each  body  responsible  for  one  or  more  measures  should  monitor 
progress.  The  Brussels  Institute  for  Environmental  Management  coordinates  and  monitors 
overall progress on the FRMP on a yearly basis. The monitored parameters are qualitative and 

quantitative and includes two criteria:  

  progress (in %): effective days and total number of days foreseen for the project; 

 

financial  progress  (%).  In  addition,  progress  is  indicated  as  not  started,  in  progress, 
finished and abandoned. 

There is no information available in any of the FRMPs assessed whether a baseline has been 
established against which progress will be monitored and assessed in all five FRMPs assessed.  

4.13  Coordination with the WFD 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  development  of  the  FRMP  has  been  coordinated  with  the 
development of the second River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) of the WFD. 

Table 9 

Coordination of the development of the FRMPs with the development of the 
second RBMP of the WFD  

BEMaas_
VL 

BEScheld
e_VL 

BERhin_
RW 

BEEscaut_
RW 

BEEscaut-
Schelde_BR 

Integration of FRMP and RBMP in a 
single plan 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

78   Wallonia informed subsequently that three monitoring actions of the progress of measures have been carried 
out  and  two  Technical  Committee  meetings  have  already  been  held  since  the  approval  of  the  plans  in  2016 
(first meeting in October 2017, second meeting in May 2018). 

79   Flanders subsequently clarified that it monitors progress qualitatively (not started, on-going,…), quantitively 

(if possible) and financially. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
BEMaas_
VL 

BEScheld
e_VL 

BERhin_
RW 

BEEscaut_
RW 

BEEscaut-
Schelde_BR 

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and 
RBMP  

Coordination  between 
authorities 
responsible  for  developing  FRMPs 
and RBMPs  

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

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

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

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

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

(e.g. 

dredging, 

Permitting or consenting of flood risk 
activities 
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 
to  reduce  urban 
been  considered 
flooding and also to contribute to the 
achievement  of  WFD  Environmental 
Objectives  
Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The  FRMPs  do  not  associate  the  reported  FD  measures  to  WFD  measures  in  a  formal  way. 

However,  although  WFD  and  FD  measures  are  not  associated  formally,  and  considering  the 
35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
close  coordination  of  the  WFD  and  FD  reporting  in  the  regions  of  Flanders,  Wallonia  and 
Brussels-Capital,  and  examining  into  detail  the  measures  in  each  of  the  plans,  it  can  be 

concluded that many  of  the measures taken under the FD (e.g. NWRM measures,  floodplain 
and river restoration) are also contributing to the WFD objectives. 

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  For  the  FRMPs  in  the  Walloon  Region,  cost  estimates  have  been  elaborated  for  all 

measures in the FRMPs assessed; 

  All the FRMPs assessed contain land use and spatial planning measures and all include 

NWRM.  

  All five FRMPs assessed provided an overview of the method for monitoring progress of 
measures. For the regions of Flanders and Brussels-Capital, monitoring is carried out on 
a yearly basis. 

The following areas for further development were identified:  

  The  Brussels  Scheldt  FRMP  does  not  provide  information  on  the  costs  of  flood 
measures;  the FRMPs for the Walloon Region  present  wide  ranges rather than specific 
costs80.  

  The  Brussels  Scheldt  FRMP  does  not  provide  information  on  funding  sources  for 

measures. 

80   Belgium subsequently informed that Flanders provides the costs of actions and funding sources on a separate 

webpage and not in the FRMP itself.  

36 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.   Consideration of climate change 

The  five  FRMPs  assessed  all  addressed  climate  change;  however,  none  of  them  refer  to 
Belgium’s  2010  National  Climate  Change  Adaption  Strategy81.  The  Flemish  FRMPs  do 
contain a reference to the regional Flemish Adaptation Plan (Vlaams Adaptatieplan82). 

All five FRMPs assessed provide some information on the potential impacts of climate change 

and  all  five  state  that  these  have  been  taken  into  consideration.  The  Flanders  and  Walloon 
FRMPs assessed state, for example, that  increased risks due to climate change are taken into 

consideration  in  calculations  of  the  design  of  measures  related  to  flood  protection 
infrastructures. 

The  Brussels  Scheldt  plan  provides  an  overview  of  climate  impacts,  based  on  a  detailed 
background  study83:  projected  impacts  include  more  intensive  summer  rains  and  more 
prolonged  periods  of  rain  in  winter.  The  FRMP  for  Wallonia’s  Scheldt  UoM  mentions 
indications of increased occurrence of extreme rainfall but states that a statistically significant 

change has not been detected yet. The reporting sheets for the two Flanders FRMPs mention an 
increased occurrence of flooding (both from heavy rainfall as well as from rivers). 

The Brussels plan indicates that the timeframes of the climate change scenarios considered are 

2030, 2050 and 2085. No information was found in the FRMPs assessed from the Flanders and 
Walloon Regions on the timeframes of climate scenarios.  

The FRMPs do not refer specifically to expected changes in main sources of flooding.  

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change 

With  regard  to  measures  to  reduce  pollution  risk  in  flood  prone  zones,  climate  change  is 
mentioned explicitly in some but not all FRMPs assessed. The FRMP for the Brussels Scheldt 

UoM indicates that climate change was considered in the design of some measures, including 
measures to address pollution risks in flood risk zones (e.g. AP 5.9: Poursuivre le programme 

pluriannuel  d’installation  de  bassins  d’orage,  which  include  addressing  pollution  risks).  A 
similar observation is made for the region of Wallonia (e.g. measure 7 on storm basins). (The 

measures  in  the  Flanders  FRMPs  assessed,  which  as  noted  in  section  4  represent  aggregated 
activities, do not provide similar details.)  

81   Belgium subsequently informed that this national adaptation plan is the sum of the regional adaptation plans, 
which  contain  all  relevant  regional  information  on  the  topic.  The  national  plan  also  includes  measures  at 
national level and coordination between regions. 
See: https://www.cnc-nkc.be/sites/default/files/report/file/be_nas_2010_1.pdf  

82   See: https://www.lne.be/vlaams-adaptatieplan  
83   “De aanpassing aan de klimaatverandering in het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest: Uitvoering van een studie 
voorafgaand aan de opstelling van een gewestelijk aanpassingsplan”, Eindverslag - © FACTOR X – ECORES 
- TEC-, 2012, p. 61.  

37 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
Climate change is mentioned in the description of non-structural measures for some, but not all 
FRMPs  assessed.  The  FRMPs  applicable  to  the  region  of  Brussels-Capital  include  some 

general  measures  that  relate  to  management  of  flood  plains,  for  example  to  strengthen 
enforcement of rules in these areas (e.g. Renforcer la réglementation et le suivi des infractions 

en zone inondable).  

5.2  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The  plan  for  the  Brussels  Scheldt  UoM  provides  a  detailed  analysis  of  climate  change 

forecasts and their implications for water management.  

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  Strengthen coordination with the National Climate Change Adaption Strategy. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
6. Cost-benefit analysis 

Some,  but  not  all  FRMPs  assessed  refer  to  costs  and  benefits  as  a  criterion  for  the 

establishment of priorities for the selection of measures.  

Each  region  takes  a  different  approach.  The  region  of  Wallonia  bases  the  prioritisation  of 
measures upon a multi-criteria analysis, including economic aspects (costs and benefits), but it 

is unclear from the information if this was done in a qualitative or quantitative way. The region 
of  Flanders  prioritises  measures  also  based  upon  a  multi-criteria  analysis,  including  a  cost-

effectiveness analysis. The Flanders FRMPs do not provide information on the methodology; 
however,  they  include  a  specific  measure  on  the  acquisition  of  additional  knowledge  and 

further  development  of  the  methodology  for  CBA  of  measure  in  general.  The  FRMP  for  the 
region of Brussels-Capital does not indicate that CBA was applied.  

The FRMPs assessed do not provide information if the CBA was used to assess measures with 
transnational effects (nor if any such measures were identified).  

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The Flanders and Walloon FRMPs assessed included cost and benefit aspects among the 

criteria for the prioritisation of measures  

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The use of CBA should be considered for the Brussels Scheldt Plan. 

39 

 
 
 
 
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 FD have not changed. Belgium has 

not reported new information to WISE since the last update in 2012.  

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 10 

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

Media (papers, TV, radio) 84 
Internet  

Digital Social networking  

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  
Meetings 85 

BEMaas
_VL 

BESchelde_
VL 

BERhin_
RW 

BEEscaut_
RW 

BEEscaut_ 
Schelde_BR 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The  three  regions  used  somewhat  different  communication  methods  for  the  public 
consultation.  In  Wallonia,  public  consultation  was  focused  on  direct  communication  of  the 

documents with stakeholders and authorities. In Flanders, an array of channels was applied for 
the consultation, including Internet, printed materials and a media campaign, ‘Vol van Water’ 
(full of water), which includes a web site86 and sponsored advertisements in magazines during 
the consultation period. In the Brussels and Flanders regions, special information sessions were 

organised to introduce the FRMPs and invite interested citizens in the public consultation: the 
FRMPs  report  one  in  Brussels  and  five  in  Flanders.  For  all  five  FRMPs  assessed,  printed 

84   Belgium  subsequently  indicated  that  in  Wallonia,  municipalities  published  information  in  their  local 

newspapers; in Brussels, information was provided via radio spots and newspapers.  

85   Belgium  subsequently  indicated  that  in  Wallonia,  there  were  meetings  in  some  municipalities  on  request  to 

inform people and the local land-use planning commission. 

86   www.volvanwater.be  

40 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
material was produced to describe the plans: for example, Wallonia87 and the Brussels Region 
produced a brief, non-technical summary for the broad public. 

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

Table 11 Methods used for the actual consultation 

BEMaas_VL 

BESchelde_VL 

BERhin_RW  BEEscaut_RW 

BEEscaut_ 
Schelde_BR 

Via Internet  

Via digital social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, 
conferences  

seminars 

or 

Telephone surveys  

involvement 

Direct 
drafting FRMP  

in 

Postal written comments 

Other* 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Note:  *  The  FRMPs  in  the  Brussels  and  Flanders  were  integrated  into  the  RBMPs  and  thus 

were part of the consultations on those plans. 

In all three regions, the consultation included written comments which could be provided via 
Internet.  In  Brussels  and  Flanders,  the  FRMP  consultation  was  organised  with  that  of  the 

RBMP,  as  the  FRMPs  were  integrated  into  the  RBMPs.  In  Brussels  and  Flanders,  meetings 
provided  an  opportunity  for  discussion  on  the  plans.  In  Wallonia,  following  the  public 

consultation, 167 letters were recorded either by post or by mail.  

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

Table 12 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

BEMaas_
VL 

BESchelde
_VL 

BERhin_R
W 

BEEscaut_
RW 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

BEEscaut_ 
Schelde_B
R 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  

Direct mailing (post)  

copies 

Paper 
exhibitions  

distributed 

at 

87   Belgium subsequently indicated an example from the Walloon Region: a brochure was prepared on the FRMP 

and RBMP for the public consultation: 
http://environnement.wallonie.be/inondations/files/pgri/FR_brochure_EP_20150511.pdf  

41 

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

Paper  copies  at  the  main  office  of 
the competent authority 

Other * 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Note: * In Brussels and Flanders, documents were available at information session 

The  documents  of  the  FRMPs  in  Belgium  were  made  available  electronically  and  in  printed 

format in the different regions, for the relevant FRMPs. In Brussels and Flanders, documents 
were available at town halls. Wallonia has sent a paper copy to each municipality to make it 

available to the public. 

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 13 Groups of stakeholders  

BEMaas_V
L 

BESchelde
_VL 

BERhin_R
W 

BEEsca
ut_RW 

BEEscaut_ 

Schelde_BR 

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

emergency 

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) 

including  nature  protection, 

NGOs 
social issues (e.g. children, housing) 

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  
Academia / Research Institutions 88 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

88   Wallonia subsequently clarified that universities are involved in the Flood Transversal Group (GTI). 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
A  range  of  stakeholders  were  consulted  on  the  plans.  In  Brussels,  the  water  actors  and 
operators (Vivaqua, SBGE, the Port Authority) were actively involved in the development of 

the  Brussels  FRMP.  In  Wallonia,  amongst  others,  emergency  actors,  the  ‘Wateringues’  and 
port  authorities  were  involved  in  the  Technical  Committee.  The  Walloon  Federation  of 

Farmers  participated  in  tables  rondes.  In  Wallonia,  universities  are  involved  in  the  Flood 
Transversal Group (GTI). 

In  addition,  neighbouring  countries  have  been  involved  via  the  international  river  basin 
commissions  of  Scheldt  and  Meuse  via  exchange  of  documents  and  multilateral  meetings. 

Relevant stakeholder groups and commissions on nature and water management were informed 
about the draft FRMPs prior to the public consultation.  

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

Table 14 Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders 

BEMaas_V
L 

BESchelde
_VL 

BERhin_R
W 

BEEscau
t_RW 

BEEscaut_ 
Schelde_BR 

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory groups  

Involvement in drafting  

Workshops and technical meetings 

Formation of alliances  

Information days 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

In  Brussels,  municipalities,  stakeholders  and  other  actors  provided  feedback  on  the  plan, 
including via a regional information session was organised for this purpose. 

In Flanders, the Coordination Commission for Integrated Water Management is responsible for 

the development of the plans: this Commission brings together a range of government bodies, 
and it organised a meeting with sub-UoM-level advisory groups (bekkenraden) for information 

and  consultation  on  the  drafting  and  content  of  the  FRMPs:  these  groups  include 
representatives of environmental organisations; various economic sectors including agriculture, 

industry,  commerce,  energy,  fisheries,  transport  and  tourism;  and  local  governments.  Draft 
versions of the plans were reviewed by local water management authorities. 

As  noted  in  section  4,  preparation  of  the  FRMPs  in  Wallonia  included  a  government 
coordination  body,  the  Transversal  Floods  Group  (Groupe  Transversal  Inondations),  which 

brings together water managers, operational water management services, technical services and 
provinces, water operators and water commissions and universities. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.4 

Effects of consultation 

The table below shows the effects of consultation: 

Changes to selection of measures 

BEMaas_V
L 

BESchelde_
VL 

BERhin_R
W 

BEEscaut_
RW 

BEEscaut_ 
Schelde_BR 

to 

Adjustment 
measures89 
Addition of new information 

specific 

Changes to the methodology used 

Commitment to further research 

Commitment to action in the next 
FRMP cycle 

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

Suggestions  for  other/additional 
measures,  additions  to  texts  and 
further clarifications90 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

According to  the FRMPs assessed, the feedback received from the public consultation  in  the 

regions  of  Flanders  and  Wallonia  mainly  resulted  in  adjustments  to  measures  proposed, 
addition  of  new  information,  further  clarifications  and  suggestion  for  additional  measures. 

Detailed  information  on  feedback  from  the  public  consultation  in  the  region  of  Brussels-
Capital could not be found in the assessed documents (for this region, a total of 37 comments 

were received from organisations and authorities and an equal number of comments from the 
public). No further information was included on the content and nature of these comments in 
the assessed documents91. 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) 

All the FRMPs assessed underwent SEA procedures.  

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practice was identified: 

89   Belgium subsequently informed that this was the case also for the Brussels FRMP/RBMP. 
90   Belgium subsequently informed that this was also the case for the Brussels FRMP/RBMP. 
91   Belgium subsequently clarified that this information was included and cited in the Decision of the Government 
of  the  Brussels-Capital  Region  adopting  the  FRMP/RBMP  for  the  period  2016-2021  of  26  January  2017: 
www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/besluit/2017/01/26/2017010521/justel  

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Across all three regions, a range of activities were undertaken for public consultation and 
the  active  involvement  of  stakeholders.  In  Flanders  and  Wallonia,  stakeholders  were 
involved via advisory groups.   

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

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

Background & method 

This  document was  produced as part of the assessment  of the FRMPs. The tables  and charts 
below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the Member States and were used by 

the  Member  State  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 FD)92, not all fields are 
mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields.  

Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers – for example, 
progress  is  measured  via  the  categories  set  out  in  the  Reporting  Guidance.  This  means  that 

producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort.  For many fields, however, a 
free  data  format  was  used.  For  some  Member  States,  this  resulted  in  thousands  of  different 

answers, or answers given in the national language.   

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

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

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

45 

 
 
 
                                                 
the  raw  data  when  conducting  the  assessment,  and  this  Annex  does  not  reflect  these 
observations. 

 

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

data sorted. 

  Measures  missing  information  may  be  assigned  categories  based  on  other  fields  (for 
example,  if  the  level  of  Responsibility  Authority  is  missing,  the  information  may  be 
obvious from the field “name of Responsible Authority”). 

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

categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The following table93 is used in the reporting on the types of measures. Each type of measures 
is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. 

NO ACTION 

M11: No Action 

PREVENTION 

M21: Avoidance 

PREPAREDNESS 

M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning 

M42: Emergency response planning 

M43: Public Awareness 

M44: Other preparedness 

RECOVERY & REVIEW 

M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery 

M22: Removal or relocation 

M52: Environmental recovery 

M23: Reduction 

M24: Other prevention 

PROTECTION 

M31: Natural flood management 

M32: Flow regulation 

M33: Coastal and floodplain works 

M34: Surface Water Management 

M35: other protection 

M53: Other recovery  

OTHER MEASURES 

M61: Other measures 

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

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ........... 50 
Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect ............. 50 
Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) ................................. 51 
Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A6: Cost by UoM (EUR) .................................................. 52 
Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect .................... 54 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by UoM .................................... 55 
Figure A7: Visualisation of Table A9: Timetable of implementation by measure aspect ....... 56 
Figure A8: Visualisation of Table A10: Timetable of implementation by UoM .................... 57 
Figure A9 - Visualisation of Table A11: Level of responsibility by measure aspect .............. 58 
Figure A10 - Visualisation of Table A12: Level of responsibility by UoM ............................ 59 
Figure A11 - Visualisation of Table A13: Progress of implementation by measure aspect .... 61 
Figure A12 - Visualisation of Table A14: Progress of implementation by UoM .................... 62 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ..................................................................................... 48 
Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM ................................ 48 
Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM ............................... 49 
Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, 
including duplicates ................................................................................................................. 49 
Table A5: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) ............................................................................... 51 
Table A6: Cost by UoM (EUR) ............................................................................................... 52 
Table A7 - Category of priority by measure aspect ................................................................. 53 
Table A8 - Category of priority by UoM ................................................................................. 54 
Table A9: Timetable of implementation by measure aspect ................................................... 55 
Table A10: Timetable of implementation by UoM ................................................................. 56 
Table A11 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect ........................................................... 58 
Table A12 - Level of responsibility by UoM........................................................................... 59 
Table A13 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect .................................................. 60 
Table A14 – Progress of implementation by UoM .................................................................. 61 

47 

 
 
 
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 

484 

484 

184 

184 

668 

668 

2 – 282 

69 

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

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

No 
Action 

M21  M22  M23  M24  M31  M32  M33  M34  M35  M41  M42  M43  M44  M51  M52  M53  M11 

BEEscaut_RW 

BEEscautSchelde
_BR 

BEMaas_VL 

BEMeuse_RW 

BERhin_RW 

BESchelde_VL 

BESeine_RW 

Grand Total 

0 

3 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

4 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

5 

4 

1 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

34 

41 

59 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

8 

0 

1 

24 

41 

70 

111 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

5 

3 

0 

9 

0 

0 

0 

2 

4 

0 

5 

1 

0 

0 

60 

85 

131 

124 

17 

12 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

3 

Notes: The codes for measure types are explained in section 2 of this document.  

1 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

4 

3 

1 

1 

9 

0 

1 

0 

15 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

Grand 
Total 

161 

25 

4 

282 

7 

3 

2 

484 

48 

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

Prevention 

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

Recovery & review 

Preparedness 

Protection 

Grand Total 

BEEscaut_RW 

BEMaas_VL 

BEMeuse_RW 

BERhin_RW 

BESchelde_VL 
BESeine_RW 
Grand Total 

4 

1 

4 

4 

1 
4 
18 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 
0 
1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 
0 
1 

18 

0 

18 

18 

0 
18 
72 

5 

1 

5 

5 

1 
5 
22 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 
1 
6 

1 

0 

1 

1 

2 
1 
6 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 
0 
3 

2 

0 

2 

2 

0 
2 
8 

2 

0 

2 

2 

0 
2 
8 

2 

0 

2 

2 

2 
2 
8 

4 

0 

4 

4 

0 
4 
16 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 
1 
4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

2 

0 

1 

1 

1 
2 
9 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 
0 
2 

42 

5 

42 

42 

10 
42 
184 

Notes: The codes used are explained in section B of this document. The Brussels Scheldt UoM (BEEscautSchelde_BR) does not have aggregated 
measures and thus is not represented in this table. 

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

Prevention 

Prevention 
Total 

Protection 

Protection 
Total 

Preparedness 

Recovery and 
review 

Prepared-
ness Total 

Aggre-
gated 

Indivi-
dual 

Aggre-
gated 

Indivi-
dual 

Aggre-
gated 

Indivi-
dual 

Recovery 
and 
review 
Total 

Other  Other 
Total 

Grand 
Total 

Aggre-
gated 

No 
action 
Total 

No 
action 

Indivi-
dual 

2 

2 

2 

<1 

2 

<1 

BEEscaut_RW 

BEESCAUT_SCHEL
DE_BR 

BEMAAS_VL 

BEMeuse_RW 

BERhin_RW 

BESCHELDE_VL 

BESeine_RW 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

Aggre-
gated 

Indivi-
dual 

22 

40 

7 

1 

29 

1 

2 

80 

11 

2 

22 

22 

2 

22 

92 

13 

62 

7 

3 

51 

22 

3 

24 

172 

25 

7 

115 

122 

10 

10 

1 

236 

7 

369 

53 

3 

7 

7 

6 

7 

37 

5 

10 

4 

243 

14 

6 

7 

406 

58 

49 

10 

10 

10 

40 

6 

6 

3 

2 

12 

2 

25 

4 

16 

3 

2 

22 

10 

2 

10 

65 

9 

3 

3 

3 

1 

3 

13 

2 

3 

5 

8 

1 

3 

3 

8 

3 

1 

3 

21 

3 

203 

25 

10 

324 

49 

13 

44 

668 

95 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

<1 

2 

<1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

BESeine_RW

0 
10 
0 
3 
0 
7 
0 
2 
22 
0 

BESCHELDE_VL

1 
6 
0 
1 
2 
1 
0 
2 
0 
0 

BERhin_RW

0 
10 
0 
3 
0 
7 
7 
0 
22 
0 

BEMeuse_RW

22 
0 

29 

7 

236 

10 

0 
3 
5 
12 

BEMAAS_VL

1 
2 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
1 
3 
1 

BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR

0 
10 
3 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
2 
7 

BEEscaut_RW

22 
0 

40 

7 

115 

0 
6 
0 
3 
10 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

No action - Individual

Prevention - Aggregate

Prevention - Individual

Protection - Aggregate

Protection - Individual

Preparedness - Aggregate

Preparedness - Individual

Recovery and review - Aggregate

Recovery and review - Individual

Other - Aggregate

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

BESeine_RW

0 

22 

2 

7 

0 

10 

0 

3 

0 
0 

No action - Individual

Prevention - Aggregate

Prevention - Individual

Protection - Aggregate

Protection - Individual

Preparedness - Aggregate

Preparedness - Individual

Recovery and review - Aggregate

Recovery and review - Individual

Other - Aggregate

BESCHELDE_VL

0 

2 

1 

6 

0 
0 

2 

1 

0 

1 

BERhin_RW

0 

22 

0 

7 

7 

10 

0 

3 

0 
0 

BEMeuse_RW

22 
0 

29 

7 

236 

10 

0 
3 
5 
12 

BEMAAS_VL

0 

2 

1 

3 

1 

0 

2 

0 
0 

1 

BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR

2 

0 

7 

0 

10 

0 

3 

0 

3 

0 

BEEscaut_RW

0 

22 

40 

7 

115 

10 

0 
3 
0 
6 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

  Cost explanation (optional field) 

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

Nevertheless,  the  majority  of  the  measures  contain  information  about  their  estimated  costs, 
which is summarised in the following tables. 

Table A5: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) 

No 
cost 

0-50k 

50-
100k 

100-
200k 

200-
500k 

500k-
1M 

1-5M 

Over 
5M 

No action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
review 

Other 

18 

13 

7 

4 

10 

126 

6 

14 

45 

1 

13 

48 

3 

38 

3 

19 

3 

27 

1 

Un-
know
n 

7 

41 

5 

No 
info. 

2 

101 

48 

47 

16 

2 

Grand 
Total 

2 

172 

406 

65 

21 

2 

Grand Total 

42 

142 

60 

61 

41 

22 

30 

1 

53 

216 

668 

Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) 

Other

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2 

Recovery & review

4 

0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Preparedness

7 

6 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

5 

16 

47 

Protection

13 

126 

45 

48 

38 

19 

27 

1 

41 

48 

Prevention

18 

10 

14 

13 

3 

3 

0 
3 

7 

101 

No action

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2 

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

51 

No cost

0-50k

50-100k

100-200k

200-500k

500k-1M

1-5M

over 5M

Unknown

No information

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A6: Cost by UoM (EUR) 

No 
cost 

0-50k 

50-
100k 

100-
200k 

200-
500k 

500k-
1M 

1-5M 

Over 
5M 

Un-
known 

No 
info. 

Grand 
Total 

BEEscaut_RW 

11 

48 

26 

18 

14 

16 

15 

13 

BEESCAUT_SC
HELDE_BR 

BEMAAS_VL 

BEMeuse_RW 

BERhin_RW 

BESCHELDE_
VL 

28 

2 

92 

1 

33 

1 

42 

1 

27 

6 

15 

1 

38 

2 

BESeine_RW 

1 

1 

42 

25 

10 

42 

42 

13 

42 

203 

25 

10 

324 

49 

13 

44 

Grand Total 

42 

142 

60 

61 

41 

22 

30 

1 

53 

216 

668 

Average per 
UoM 

6 

20 

9 

9 

6 

3 

4 

<1 

8 

31 

95 

Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A6: Cost by UoM (EUR) 

No cost

0-50k

50-100k

100-200k

200-500k

500k-1M

1-5M

over 5M

Unknown

No information

BESeine_RW

1 

0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

BESCHELDE_VL

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

BERhin_RW

2 

1 

1 

0 
1 
0 
0 
0 

2 

42 

13 

42 

BEMeuse_RW

28 

92 

33 

42 

27 

6 

1 
15 

38 

42 

BEMAAS_VL

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

10 

25 

BEEscaut_RW

11 

48 

26 

18 

14 

16 

15 

0 

13 

42 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

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). 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Location of measures 

Location of implementation  of measures  was  reported for all measures.  However, due to  the 
large number of different locations mentioned, aggregation of the data was not possible.  

Geographic coverage 

Geographic coverage of the impact of measures was reported for around half of the measures. 
However,  due  to  the  large  number  of  different  types  of  geographic  coverage  mentioned, 

aggregation of the data was not possible.  

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 reporting sheet); 

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

is required); 

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

required). 

Objectives 

Information about objectives was not provided in the reporting sheets for any measures. 

Category of priority 

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

  Critical; 

  Very high; 

  High; 

  Moderate; 

  Low. 

Table A7 - Category of priority by measure aspect 

Critical 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

No 
information 

Grand 
Total 

No action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

42 

116 

21 

1 

46 

129 

16 

3 

5 

43 

119 

22 

30 

29 

2 

172 

406 

65 

1 

8 

8 

6 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recovery & 
review 

Other 

4 

4 

Grand Total 

183 

196 

1 

9 

2 

25 

12 

196 

59 

21 

2 

668 

Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect 

Other

0 
0 

2 

Recovery & review

4 

4 

0 

1 

12 

Preparedness

21 

16 

6 

0 

22 

Protection

116 

129 

5 
8 

119 

29 

Prevention

42 

46 

8 

3 

43 

30 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

Critical

Very high

High

Moderate

Low

No information

No action

0 

1 

1 

0 
0 
0 

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Table A8 - Category of priority by UoM 

Critical 

BEEscaut_RW 

62 

BEESCAUT_SCHE
LDE_BR 

BEMAAS_VL 

BEMeuse_RW 

BERhin_RW 

BESCHELDE_VL 

BESeine_RW 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

84 

19 

18 

183 

26 

Very 
high 

63 

7 

110 

9 

7 

196 

28 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

No 
information 

Grand 
Total 

51 

7 

99 

20 

19 

196 

28 

27 

31 

1 

59 

8 

203 

25 

10 

324 

49 

13 

44 

668 

95 

6 

2 

1 

9 

1 

5 

8 

12 

25 

4 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by UoM 

BESeine_RW

18 

7 

0 
0 

19 

0 

BESCHELDE_VL

0 
0 

12 

1 

0 
0 

BERhin_RW

19 

9 

0 
0 

20 

1 

Critical

BEMeuse_RW

84 

110 

0 
0 

99 

31 

BEMAAS_VL

0 
0 

BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR

0 

7 

8 

5 

2 

0 
0 

6 

7 

0 

Very high

High

Moderate

Low

No information

BEEscaut_RW

62 

63 

0 
0 

51 

27 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Timetable 

Information  on  the  timetable  was  provided  for  the  majority  of  measures,  a  summary  is 

provided in the following tables. 

Table A9: Timetable of implementation by measure aspect  

Planned 
2016 - 
2018 

Planned 
2019 - 
2021 

2016-
2021 

In 
progress 

Periodic 

No 
information 

Grand 
Total 

No action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
review 

Other 

6 

103 

8 

5 

50 

1 

88 

28 

40 

12 

46 

145 

4 

Grand Total 

117 

56 

168 

195 

14 

60 

6 

4 

84 

2 

13 

20 

7 

4 

2 

48 

2 

172 

406 

65 

21 

2 

668 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A7: Visualisation of Table A9: Timetable of implementation by measure aspect  

Other

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2 

Recovery & review

0 

1 

12 

0 

4 

4 

Preparedness

8 

0 

40 

4 

6 

7 

Planned 2019 - 2021

Planned 2016 - 2018

Protection

103 

50 

28 

145 

60 

20 

Prevention

6 

5 

88 

46 

14 

13 

2016-2021

In progress

Periodic

No information

No action

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Table A10: Timetable of implementation by UoM 

Planned 
2016 - 
2018 
35 

Planned 
2019 - 
2021 
16 

2016-
2021 

In 
progress 

Periodic 

42 

99 

11 

79 

3 

117 

17 

40 

56 

8 

42 

42 

42 

168 

24 

95 

1 

195 

28 

68 

3 

2 

84 

12 

No 
informat
ion 

Grand 
Total 

203 

25 

10 

324 

49 

13 

44 

668 

95 

2595 

10 

13 

48 

7 

BEEscaut_RW 

BEESCAUT_SCHE
LDE_BR94 
BEMAAS_VL 

BEMeuse_RW 

BERhin_RW 

BESCHELDE_VL 

BESeine_RW 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

94  Brussels subsequently clarified that for the Brussels Region the phasing of the measure is done and linked to a 

timetable. 
  Priority 1 measures should be implemented in the first years of implementation of the Plan (2016-2017), 
  Priority 2 measures during the years 2018-2019 and 
  Priority 3 measures, considered as lower priority, should have started by 2021 (2020-2021). 

  This is explained on p. 435 of the RMBP. 
95    Information  on  how  many  measures  are  planned  in  the  different  periods  is  not  explicitly  mentioned  in  the 

FRMP. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure A8: Visualisation of Table A10: Timetable of implementation by UoM  

BESeine_RW

0 
0 

BESCHELDE_VL

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

BERhin_RW

3 

0 

42 

13 

42 

0 

2 

0 

1 

3 

0 

Planned 2016 - 2018

Planned 2019 - 2021

BEMeuse_RW

79 

40 

42 

95 

68 

0 

BEMAAS_VL

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

10 

25 

2016-2021

In progress

Periodic

No information

BEEscaut_RW

35 

16 

42 

99 

0 
11 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

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).  

Information  about  the  name  of  the  responsible  authority  was  provided  for  most  measures. 
However, due to the large number of different authorities mentioned, aggregation of the data 

was not possible.  

Information  about  the  level  of  the  responsible  authority  was  provided  for  all  measures,  with 
two  measures  reported  twice,  making  the  total  670  instead  of  668.  It  is  assumed  that  these 

measures were reported twice as they have more than one responsible authority.  

57 

 
 
 
 
 
Table A11 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

Municipality 

Province 

Region 

Multiple 
authorities 

Other 

Grand 
Total 

Sub-
RBD 

10 

2 

7 

4 

No action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
review 

Other 

1 

25 

161 

9 

1 

32 

46 

2 

1 

81 

1 

103 

186 

47 

14 

1 

352 

2 

9 

1 

12 

2 

174 

406 

65 

21 

2 

670 

2 

2 

1 

5 

Grand Total 

23 

197 

Notes:  The  original  data  reports  information  about  responsible  authorities  for  670  measures 

instead of 668, indicating that several measures have reported multiple authorities. 

Figure A9 - Visualisation of Table A11: Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

Other

1 

1 

Recovery & review

4 

1 

1 

Preparedness

7 

9 

2 

14 

47 

Protection

2 

161 

46 

186 

Prevention

10 

25 

32 

103 

No action

1 

1 

1 

2 
9 

2 
2 

sub-RBD

Municipality

Province

Region

Multiple authorities

Other

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Notes: 
The original data reports information about responsible authorities for 670 measures instead of 

668, indicating that several measures have reported multiple authorities. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A12 - Level of responsibility by UoM 

Sub-RBD 

Municipa
lity 

Province 

Region 

Multiple 
authorities 

Other 

Grand 
Total 

BEEscaut_RW 

9 

BEESCAUT_SC
HELDE_BR 

BEMAAS_VL 

49 

73 

5 

BEMeuse_RW 

12 

119 

32 

BERhin_RW 

BESCHELDE_V
L 

BESeine_RW 

Grand Total 

Average per 
UoM 

2 

23 

3 

197 

28 

81 

12 

69 

22 

6 

160 

49 

4 

42 

352 

50 

4 

8 

12 

2 

3 

1 

1 

5 

1 

203 

27 

10 

324 

49 

13 

44 

670 

96 

Notes:  The  original  data  reports  information  about  responsible  authorities  for  670  measures 

instead of 668, indicating that several measures have reported multiple authorities. 

Figure A10 - Visualisation of Table A12: Level of responsibility by UoM 

BESeine_RW

2 

BESCHELDE_VL

4 

BERhin_RW

42 

49 

8 

1 

BEMeuse_RW

12 

119 

32 

160 

1 

BEMAAS_VL

6 

4 

BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR

5 

22 

BEEscaut_RW

9 

73 

49 

69 

3 

sub-RBD

Municipality

Province

Region

Multiple
authorities
Other

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Notes:  The  original  data  reports  information  about  responsible  authorities  for  670  measures 

instead of 668, indicating that several measures have reported multiple authorities. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

Belgium  reported  information  about  the  progress  of  implementation  of  the  measures.  The 
Progress of implementation was reported as96:  

  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 A13 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Progress ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

Ongoing 
construction 

1 

12 

2 

No action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Other 

52 

150 

6 

1 

2 

Grand Total 

211 
Notes: No measures were reported as completed  

15 

2 

119 

244 

57 

20 

442 

2 

172 

406 

65 

21 

2 

668 

96   Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC): 

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

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Figure A11 - Visualisation of Table A13: Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Other

0 

Recovery & review

0 

1 

2 

20 

0 

Preparedness

2 

6 

57 

Protection

12 

150 

Prevention

1 

52 

244 

119 

No action

0 
0 

2 

Ongoing construction

Progress ongoing

Not started

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Notes: No measures were reported as completed  

Table A14 – Progress of implementation by UoM 

Ongoing 
construction 

Progress ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

BEEscaut_RW 

BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 

BEMAAS_VL 

BEMeuse_RW 

BERhin_RW 

BESCHELDE_VL 

BESeine_RW 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

3 

5 

7 

15 

2 

99 

7 

4 

95 

1 

5 

211 

30 

Notes: No measures were reported as completed  

104 

15 

1 

229 

48 

1 

44 

442 

63 

203 

25 

10 

324 

49 

13 

44 

668 

95 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A12 - Visualisation of Table A14: Progress of implementation by UoM 

BESeine_RW

0 
0 

BESCHELDE_VL

7 

BERhin_RW

1 
0 

44 

48 

5 

1 

BEMeuse_RW

0 

95 

229 

BEMAAS_VL

BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR

3 

BEEscaut_RW

0 

5 

7 

99 

4 

15 

104 

Ongoing construction

Progress ongoing

Not started

1 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Notes: No measures were reported as completed  

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

Document on the FD. 

For measures involving construction or building works (e.g. a waste water treatment plant, 
a fish pass, a river restoration project, etc.): 
  Not  started  (NS)  means  the  technical  and/or  administrative  procedures  necessary  for 

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

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

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

are not finalized. 

  Completed (COM) means the works have been finalised and the facilities are operational 

(maybe only in testing period in case e.g. a waste water treatment plant). 

For measures involving advisory services (e.g. training for farmers): 
  Not  started  (NS)  means  the  advisory  services  are  not  yet  operational  and  have  not 

provided any advisory session yet. 

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

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

62 

 
 
 
 
 
For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 
  Not started (NS) means  the research, investigation or study has not  started, i.e. contract 

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

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

or started and is being developed at the moment. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed (COM) means the research, investigation or study has been finalised and has 

been delivered, i.e. the results or deliverables are available (report, model, etc.). 

For  measures 
instructions, etc.): 
  Not started (NS) means the administrative file has not been opened and there has not been 

involving  administrative  acts  (e.g. 

licenses,  permits,  regulations, 

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). 

All measures have information for ‘any other information’. However, due to the large number 

of different responses the data could not be aggregated.  

No information was provided for the field ‘Other Community Act’. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures97 

M11 

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

No Action 

M21 

M22 

M23 

M24 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

Prevention 

Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone 
areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation 

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 

Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a 
flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc... 

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 

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. 

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 

M42 

M43 

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

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 

M44  Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to establish or enhance preparedness for flood events to 

reduce adverse consequences 

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

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Recovery & Review 

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 

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) 

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

Other 

Other 

M51 

M52 

M53 

M61 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures  

NWRM cover a wide range of actions and land use types. Many different measures can act as 

NWRM,  by  encouraging  the  retention  of  water  within  a  catchment  and,  through  that, 
enhancing  the  natural  functioning  of  the  catchment.  The  catalogue  developed  in  the  NWRM 

project  represents  a  comprehensive  but  non-prescriptive  wide  range  of  measures;  other 
measures, or similar measures called by a different name, could also be classified as NWRM.  

To ease access to measures, the catalogue of measures hereunder is sorted by the primary land 

use in which it was implemented: Agriculture; Forest; Hydromorphology; Urban. Most of the 
measures however can be applied to more than one land use type. 

Table B2 

List of NWRMs 

Agriculture 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

F02 Maintenance of forest 
cover in headwater areas 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

A03 Crop rotation 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U03 Permeable surfaces 

A04 Strip cropping along 
contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

U05 Channels and rills 

U06 Filter Strips 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A07 Low till agriculture 

A08 Green cover 

A09 Early sowing 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

F08 Appropriate design of 
roads and stream 
crossings 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

A10 Traditional terracing 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

F11 Urban forest parks 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 
features 

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation 

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

U07 Soakaways 

U08 Infiltration Trenches 

U09 Rain Gardens 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

N12 Lake restoration 

U12 Infiltration basins 

A13 Mulching 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

66