COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Italy Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, 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) 81 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Italy Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

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

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

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

Overview of the assessment .................................................................................................. 11 

Good Practices....................................................................................................................... 20 

Areas for further development .............................................................................................. 21 

Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 23 

1. 

Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment ........................ 25 

1.1  Reporting of the FRMPs ............................................................................................. 25 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs .......................................................................................... 25 

2. 

 Integration of previously reported information .............................................................. 27 

2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment ................................ 27 

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs ............... 29 

2.1.2 

Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHR maps .......... 30 

2.2 

Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs..................... 30 

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas .............................................................................. 32 

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps ............................... 32 

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas ................................................... 32 

2.4  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk 
maps   .................................................................................................................................... 33 

2.5  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration 
of previously reported information ....................................................................................... 35 

3. Setting of Objectives ............................................................................................................. 37 

3.1 

Focus of objectives ..................................................................................................... 37 

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................ 38 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ........................................... 38 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding .............................. 38 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives ................................................................................ 39 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ........ 39 

4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ........................................................... 41 

1 

 
 
4.1  Cost of measures ......................................................................................................... 41 

4.2 

Funding of measures ................................................................................................... 42 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures ............................................. 43 

4.4  Measures and objectives ............................................................................................. 45 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures ..................................................................... 45 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ........................................................................................... 45 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ........................................... 47 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures .................................................................... 48 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ............................................................ 49 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ....................................................................................... 51 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding .................................................................. 53 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ....................................................... 54 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive ................................................... 55 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures .............. 58 

5. Consideration of climate change ........................................................................................... 59 

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change .............................. 60 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change ......... 60 

6. Cost-benefit analysis ............................................................................................................. 61 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ..................................................... 61 

7. 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation
 ......................................................................................................................................... 63 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................. 63 

7.2 

Public information and consultation ........................................................................... 63 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders ........................................................................... 66 

7.4  Effects of consultation ................................................................................................ 69 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 70 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding governance ................. 70 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 72 

Background & method .......................................................................................................... 72 

Types of measures used in reporting ..................................................................................... 73 

List of Annex A tables & figures .......................................................................................... 74 

2 

 
 
 
Measures overview ................................................................................................................ 75 

Measure details: cost ............................................................................................................. 84 

Measure details: name & location ......................................................................................... 85 

Location of measures ........................................................................................................... 85 

Geographic coverage ............................................................................................................ 85 

Measure details: objectives ................................................................................................... 86 

Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 86 

Category of priority .............................................................................................................. 86 

Timetable .............................................................................................................................. 91 

Measure details: authorities ................................................................................................... 92 

Measure details: progress ...................................................................................................... 97 

Measure details: other ......................................................................................................... 103 

Annex A1: Overview of the Italian FRMPs internet links reported ....................................... 107 

Annex A2: Objectives in the five FRMPs assessed ................................................................ 113 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types .................................................................................. 116 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) ............................................... 117 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
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 and Risk Map 
Flood Risk Management Plan 
Non-Governmental Organisation 
Natural Water Retention Measures 
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments 
Programme of Measures 
River Basin District 
River Basin Management Plan 
Strategic Environmental Assessment 
Unit of Management 
Water Framework Directive 
Water Information System for Europe 

4 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

This report assesses the FRMPs for Italy1. 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:  Italy  has  designated  47  Units  of  Management  (UoM);  FRMPs  are 
prepared in some cases at UoM level, in some cases at the level of the eight River Basin 
Districts  (RBDs)  designated  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive.  Due  to  the  high 

number  of  FRMPs  prepared  in  Italy,  the  assessment  has  focused  on  a  selected  set  of 
plans,  chosen  to  cover  both  UoM  and  RBD  level  plans  along  with  a  broad  range  of 
methodological approaches. The following FRMPs were reviewed3: 

o  ITA  (Eastern  Alps)  RBD:  this  FRMP  was  prepared  at  RBD  level.  Within  the 
FRMP, the assessment looked in particular at the Isonzo UoM (ITN004), part of a 
transboundary catchment area with Slovenia. 

o  ITE  (Central  Apennines)  RBD:  this  FRMP  covers  the  entire  RBD  and  multiple 

UoMs. 

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

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  Whereas  the  Po  UoM,  ITN008,  was  not  reviewed,  information  on  ITN008,  in  particular  on  objectives  (and 
based  solely  on  the  reporting  sheet),  is  also  presented  in  this  document  because  of  the  somewhat  different 
approach that was adopted for this UoM. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
o  The  joint  FRMP  for  two  UoMs,  the  Sangro  Interregional  Basin  (ITI023)  and 
Abruzzo Region (ITR131) UoMs: both areas lie within the ITE Central Apennines 

RBD.  

o  FRMP  for  the  single  UoM  covering  the  Puglia  Region  and  the  Ofanto  River 

interregional basin (ITR161I020).  

o  FRMP  for  the  Sardinia  Region  (ITR201):  this  is  an  example  of  an  FRMP  that 
covers  an  entire  UoM  that  also  matches  the  RBD  territory  (ITR201  was  also 
covered in the FHRM assessment).  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
Overview 

Figure 1 

Map of Units of Management 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

Italy has designated 47 UoMs, covering three types of basins: basins of national interest (e.g. 

Po  and  Tiber);  interregional  basins  (typically  smaller  rivers  that  cross  regional  boundaries, 
often  between  two  regions  e.g.  the  Sangro  between  Abruzzo  and  Molise);  regional  basins, 

covering  one  or  more  river  catchments  within  a  regional  territory  e.g.  Sicily  and  Veneto. 
Before  the  WFD,  water  governance  in  Italy  followed  the  organisational  pattern  used  for  the 

UoMs; with the WFD, Italy established eight RBDs, aggregating many previous basins. Under 

7 

 
 
 
the Floods Directive, Italy’s FRMPs were prepared at RBD level and, with greater detail, at the 
level of individual UoMs within the RBDs4 5.  

Italy’s FRMPs were approved by RBD authorities in March 2016 and by the national Council 

of  Ministers  in  February  2017.  An  exception  is  the  Sicily  FRMP,  which  has  not  yet  been 
approved,  according  to  information  provided  by  the  ISPRA,  the  Italian  Institute  for 
Environmental Protection and Research6.   

Italy has not  uploaded FRMPs to  European Environment  Agency’s (EEA) WISE7, nor has it 
indicated the total number of FRMPs; nonetheless, for each UoM, internet links are provided 
to  the  FRMP8  and  other  relevant  documents.  In  addition,  Italy  has  uploaded  a  file 
(UoM_RBD.xls)  that  lists  all  the  units  of  management  and  their  competent  authorities, 

organised by RBD.  

Based  on  the  FRMPs  assessed,  Italy's  plans  vary  significantly  in  terms  of  the  amount  of 
information provided. For example, the FRMP for ITA (Eastern Alps RBD) includes a range 
of details, such as the cost of each measure, that are not found in other FRMPs: for example, 

the FRMP that covers both  the Sangro  Interregional  Basin  (ITI023) and the Abruzzo Region 
(ITR131)  does  not  provide  this  information  nor  a  discussion  on  links  with  the  WFD  and 

RBMP, a topic included in the FRMP for ITA. A few common approaches were identified: for 
example, all five FRMPs assessed follow the same structure for their  objectives;  and four of 

the  five  FRMPs  assessed  used  a  national  multi-criteria  methodology  to  prioritise  their 
measures. 

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

and  the  number  of  APSFRs  reported.  It  also  shows  if  all  documents  required  for  each  UoM 

4 

Italy subsequently informed that the FRMPs are coordinated and prepared at RBD level and detailed at UoM 
scale by the Prime  Competent Authorities (River Basin  Authorities and Regional  Authorities). In particular, 
measures concerning “Preparedness” and “Recovery & Review” pertain to civil protection authorities and are 
designated at regional level. 

5  There are exceptions to this pattern: for example, in the Eastern Alps (ITA) and Po (ITB) RBDs, FRMPs were 
prepared only at RBD level. For Sardinia (ITG) and Sicily (ITH), the RBD and UoM have the same territorial 
coverage, the respective regions. 

6  See:  http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/pre_meteo/idro/Piani_gest.html.  According  to  this  web  page,  the  Sicily 
FRMP passed its first administrative step, adoption by the RBD Committee. Italy subsequently informed that  
the  FRMP  for  the  Sicily  Hydrographic  District,  was  approved  with  Decision  of  the  Regional  Government 
“Deliberazione  n. 274 del 25 Luglio 2018” on July 25th 2018 and is currently at the offices of the Presidency 
of the Council of Ministers for the formal administrative procedure for signature of the Decree of the President 
of the Council of Ministers. 
 http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/603/deliveries?id=603&tab=deliveries&d-4014547-p=1&d-4014547-
o=2&d-4014547-s=3  

7 

8  See Annex A1 of this document for an overview of the Italian FRMPs internet links reported. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
were submitted to European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE9 – the FRMP as a PDF and 
the reporting sheet as an XML. (As noted above, no FRMPs were submitted.)  

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Italy 

UoM 

Names 

Number of APSFRs 

XML 

PDF 

Reported 

Reported 

ITI012 

ITI014 

ITI015 

ITI017 

ITI018 

ITI021 

ITI022 

ITI023 

ITI024 

ITI025 

ITI026 

ITI027 

ITI028 

ITI029 

Bradano 

Fiora 

Fortore 

Lemene 

Magra 

Reno 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Saccione 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Sangro 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Sinni 

Sele 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Fissero-Tartaro-

Canalbianco 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Trigno 

Tronto 

Noce 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITI01319 

Conca-Marecchia 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITN001 

ITN002 

Adige 

Arno 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITN003 

Brenta-Bacchiglione  No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITN004 

ITN005 

ITN006 

ITN007 

ITN008 

ITN009 

ITN010 

ITN011 

Isonzo 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Liri-Garigliano 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Livenza 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Piave 

Po 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Tagliamento 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Tevere 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Volturno 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITR051 

Regionale Veneto 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITR061 

Regionale Friuli 

Venezia Giulia 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITR071 

Regionale Liguria 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITR081 

Regionale Emilia 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

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  

9 

 
 
                                                 
UoM 

Names 

Number of APSFRs 

XML 

PDF 

Reported 

Reported 

ITR091 

ITR092 

ITR093 

Romagna 

Regionale Toscana 

Costa 

Regionale Toscana 

Nord 

Regionale Toscana 

Ombrone 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Yes 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Yes 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

ITR111 

Regionale Marche 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITR121 

Regionale Lazio 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITR131 

Regionale Abruzzo  No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITR141 

ITR151 

ITR152 

ITR153 

Regionale Molise - 

Biferno e minor 

Regionale Campania 

Nord Occidentale 

Regionale Destra 

Sele 

Regionale Sinistra 

Sele 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Yes 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Yes 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITR154 

Regionale Sarno 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITR161I0

20 

Regionale Puglia e 

Interregionale 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Yes 

Ofanto 

ITR171 

Regionale Basilicata  No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITR181I0

Regionale Calabria e 

16 

Interregionale Lao 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITR191 

Regionale Sicilia 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITR201 

Regionale Sardegna  No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

ITSNP01 

Serchio 

No APSFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Links to the FRMPs can be found via the following web page: 

 

http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/pre_meteo/idro/Piani_gest.html   

This page provides links to the FRMP pages of the eight RBDs10. From the FRMP pages of the 
eight RBDs, there are links to the FRMP pages of lower-level UoMs. 

10  The table named "Adozione e approvazione dei PGRA (Piano Gestione Rischio Alluvioni)" contains the links 

to the FRMPs. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview of the assessment 

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

The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: 

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

not met; 

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

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

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

FRMP to address the criterion. 

Table 2 

Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

FRM objectives have been 
established  

Strong evidence 

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of potential 
adverse consequences  

Strong evidence  

All five FRMPs assessed set out objectives. 
For all five, the objectives are grouped around 
four themes – reduction of risk (some FRMPs 
refer to reduction of adverse consequences) to 
human health, cultural heritage, environment 
and economic activities.  

Italy's 47 reporting sheets provide objectives 
for all UoMs. The structure of four themes is 
used for nearly all UoMs (though Italy's 
largest UoM, the Po, ITN008, uses a different 
structure, as do a few other UoMs, in 
addressing risks to human health, cultural 
heritage, environment and economic 
activities). 

Three of the five FRMPs assessed refer 
directly to the reduction of adverse 
consequences on human health, cultural 
heritage, environment and economic activities. 
The other two FRMPs assessed refer to risk 
reduction, which includes reduction of 
potential adverse consequences of flooding. 
According to Italy's reporting sheets, nearly 
all UoMs follow one or the other approach 

11 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

Some evidence  

...to non-structural initiatives   Some evidence  

(Italy's largest UoM, the Po, uses a different 
approach but its objectives also address 
reduction of potential adverse consequences). 

The objectives of the two of the five FRMPs 
assessed refer explicitly to the reduction of 
risk, which includes both adverse 
consequences as well as the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding11. 

The objectives of the five FRMPs assessed do 
not refer explicitly to non-structural initiatives 
(though all the FRMPs assessed include non-
structural measures12). The reporting sheet for 
the Po UoM (ITN008) lists as the first of its 
five objectives a non-structural initiative, 
"improving knowledge of [flood] risk". 

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

...human health  

Strong evidence  

As noted above, for all five FRMPs assessed, 
objectives are grouped around four themes - 
reduction of risk for human health, cultural 
heritage, environment and economic activities. 
This approach is reported for nearly all of 
Italy's UoMs (and those FRMPs that follow a 
different presentation of objectives, such as 
the Po UoM, ITN008, have indicated that they 
address human health, cultural heritage, 
environment and economic activities).   

11  Italy subsequently highlighted that the reduction of likelihood is explicitly considered as a preferential factor 
in  the  prioritisation  of  measures.  In  the  national  multicriteria  approach  for  the  prioritisation  of  measures 
reference is made to “reduction of likelihood” or to “reduction of frequency”. Furthermore, the reduction of 
the  likelihood  of  flooding  is  among  the  specific  objectives  of  several  FRMPs  that  were  not  assessed.  For 
example, for UoM Serchio (ITSNP01) and UoM Arno (ITN002), specific objectives in terms of return period 
are  rather  defined  for  main  rivers  and  for  water  courses  aggregated  by  homogeneous  sub-UoM  areas.  See 
UoM Arno – Relazione di Piano (chapter 6, p. 53, chapter 7): 
http://www.appenninosettentrionale.it/rep/pgra_eu/Relazione%20di%20Piano/PGRA_UoM_ARNO_ITN002/ 
…and UoM Serchio - Relazione di Piano - parte a (chapter 4, §4.2.2, §4.3.2, §4.4.2): 
http://www.autorita.bacinoserchio.it/files/pianodigestioneri/pianoapprovato2016/PGRA_Serchio_RELAZION
E_PIANO_ParteA.pdf  

12  Italy  subsequently  informed  that  most  of  prevention  or  preparedness  measures  set  out  in  FRMPs  are  non-
structural,  such  as  actions  and  rules  of  territorial  governance,  land  use  policies,  relocations,  urban  planning, 
forecasting  models,  warning  systems,  actions  and  plans  for  civil  protection,  continuous  and  progressive 
improvement  of  knowledge  and  data,  adoption  of  sustainable  strategies  for  an  integrated  management  in 
coastal  area,  relocation  of  more  exposed  assets,  conservation/enhancement  of  hydromorphological 
functionality of river corridors. Non-structural initiatives are considered as a plus factor in the prioritization of 
measures. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...economic activity  

Strong evidence  

See above under human health. In addition, 
the Po UoM (ITN008), which follows a 
different structure, includes as one of its five 
objectives the defence of cities and 
metropolitan areas and cites their political, 
economic and financial roles. 

...environment  

Strong evidence  

See above under human health.  

...cultural heritage  

Strong evidence  

See above under human health.  

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence  

...prioritised  

Strong evidence  

Italy has reported a total of 8 34613 measures 
across all UoMs. These measures cover all 
four aspects - Prevention, Protection, 
Preparedness, Recovery and Review - as well 
as the category of "other measures". 

Italy has reported the priorities for about 90 % 
of the measures. Information on the approach 
for prioritisation was provided for all five 
FRMPs assessed.  

Four of the five FRMPs assessed refer to the 
use of a multicriteria approach for 
prioritisation. Three of these FRMPs - for 
Sangro (ITI023), Central Apennines (ITE) and 
Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) - indicate that the 
prioritisation of measures was carried out 
following an approach indicated by ISPRA, 
the Italian Institute for Environmental 
Protection and Research. The fourth FRMP, 
for the Eastern Alps (ITA), refers to the 
adaptation of an Austrian multicriteria system: 
this method includes among its four main 
criteria, compatibility with the objectives of 
the WFD.  

The reporting sheet for Sardinia (ITR201) 
states that priority is given to preliminary 
measures such as mapping and information 
actions that support other measures; measures 
that support planning, regulations and civil 
protection; and measures for emergency and 

13 Italy subsequently informed that there was a reporting inaccuracy and the total number of measures is 8 348. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

recovery preparations. 

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

...costs & benefits  

Some evidence  

Costs and benefits were taken into account in 
at least three of the five FRMPs assessed14, 
though information provided on the 
approaches is sometimes limited. 

One of the five FRMPs assessed - for Sardinia 
(ITR201) - indicates that a cost-benefit 
analysis (CBA) of non-structural measures 
was carried out, but further details are not 
available15.  
For the Eastern Alps (ITA) FRMP, economic 
analysis is one of the four criteria used for 
prioritisation, though further details on the 
approach are not provided.  

The FRMP for the Puglia Region and the 
Ofanto Interregional Basin (ITR161I020) 
provides further detail on costs and benefits, 
including an overview of the costs of 
measures to be financed by the Puglia Region 
and presents estimates of the costs of floods 
for three sectors.  

14  Italy subsequently informed that other FRMPs, beyond those assessed, have considered the costs and benefits 
of measures. For the Northern Apennines (ITC), priority was given to the measures based on the benefits and, 
for some UoMs, the costs of the protection measures were estimated. These costs are shown in the FRMPs and 
in the ReNDiS web platform. See for example the document: “UoM Arno - Metodo ed elenco priorizzazione 
misure di protezione”, available at: 
http://www.appenninosettentrionale.it/rep/pgra_eu/Relazione%20di%20Piano/PGRA_UoM_ARNO_ITN002/
Metodo_elenco_priorizzazione_misure_protezione.pdf   

15  Italy further informed that for the Sardinia (ITR201) FRMP, the costs related to non-structural measures have 
not  been  provided  because  of  their  possible  variability  due  to  the  number  and  consistency  of  stakeholders 
involved.  These  measures  consist  in  activities  such  as  public  education,  expert  involvement,  and  similar 
activities  that  are  highly  variable  depending  on  stakeholder  response,  and  therefore  difficult  to  quantify. 
Furthermore, non-structural measures such as directives and rules for territorial use are not directly connected 
to  a  budget  since  they  fall  into  the  institutional  activities  of  the  Basin  district  authority.  (See  the  document 
“Relazione sulle misure non strutturali” (Report on non-structural measures), available at: 
http://www.regione.sardegna.it/j/v/2420?s=1&v=9&c=14012&na=1&n=10&tb=14006&esp=1)  

14 

 
 
                                                 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...flood extent  

Some evidence  

...flood conveyance  

Some evidence  

Italy's reporting sheets state that flood extent 
was identified in the Piani di Assetto 
Idrogeologico (Plans for Hydrogeological 
Arrangements, PAIs), which pre-date the 
Floods Directive and were used instead of the 
PFRA stage in Italy (as per Art. 13(1)(b) of 
the Directive). Flood extent was further 
assessed in the FHRM stage. While the 
FRMPs assessed and Italy’s reporting sheets 
highlight that the plans were developed on the 
basis of the FHRMs, details were not found on 
how flood extent was used to prepare the 
FRMPs themselves16. 

The reporting sheets for the five FRMPs 
assessed indicate that conveyance routes were 
studied in the preparation of the FHRMs17, 
which in turn were used to prepare the 
FRMPs; however, details were not found 
however on how this influenced the FRMPs. 

16  Italy further noted that the hazard and risk maps prepared by the PAIs (Piani di Assetto Idrogeologico) used 
the  same,  and  sometimes  more  exhaustive,  information  required  by  the  preliminary  flood  risk  assessment, 
including the identification of the areas at significant flood risk. The FHRMs were based, essentially, on the 
work  carried  out  by  the  Basin  Authorities,  enhancing  the  contents  of  the  PAIs  eventually  integrated  with 
subsequent  updating studies.  Flood extent is the area covered by FHRMs (or by PAI hazard and risk  maps) 
and  FRMPs  are  essentially  prepared  on  these  areas  except  for  measures  at  RBD  scale.  So  basically,  the 
FRMPs define risk management strategies based on the FHRMs. 

  Moreover,  flood  conveyance  routes  are  considered  in  the  hydraulic  modelling  used  for  the  preparation  of 
hazard  maps  and  are  considered  to  define  all  measures  where  flow  dynamics  are  involved  (e.g.  protection 
measures  for  flow regulation). On  the basis of risk associated to the flood extent,  measures are defined and 
level of prioritization is associated to them. 

17  Italy subsequently noted that, for the Ofanto and Puglia UoM (ITR161I020) in addition to the flood extension 
of the FHRM, conveyance routes and their buffers were used to identify the APSFRs, as indicated on pages 36 
and 43 of FRMP and its attachment D: 
http://www.adb.puglia.it/public/files/downloads/1_Direttiva2007/Relazione_PGRA.pdf 
For the Northern Apennines (ITC), the drafting of the FHRMs derives, in many cases, from the results of 2D 
or  quasi-2D  hydraulic  flow  modelling.  Therefore,  the  FHRMs  take  into  account  the  conveyance  routes. 
Consequently,  the  measures  envisaged  for  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  in  the  FRMPs  also  take  into 
account the conveyance routes. For further information see for example  the FHRM report for the Arno UoM 
(ITN002):  
http://www.appenninosettentrionale.it/rep/distretto/relazione_PGAlluvioni_Completa_18062013.pdf  

15 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...water retention  

Strong evidence  

...environmental objectives 
of the WFD  

Strong evidence  

...spatial planning/land use   Strong evidence  

...nature conservation  

Some evidence  

The reporting sheet for the Po UoM, Italy's 
largest UoM, has among its five objectives 
providing greater room for the river. In 
addition, four of the five FRMPs assessed 
refer to the role of Natural Water Retention 
Measures (NWRMs) among their measures 
(the exception being the FRMP for Sardinia, 
ITR201), and all five contain NWRMs in their 
list of measures. Examples include measures 
to restore natural areas where flood waters can 
expand and to re-naturalise river courses. 

Four of the five FRMPs assessed - those for 
the Eastern Alps (ITA), Central Apennines 
(ITE), Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) and 
Sardinia (ITR201) - cite the environmental 
objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD. For Sardinia, 
moreover, the FRMP’s specific objectives call 
for the mitigation of negative impacts on 
water bodies as per the WFD and for 
safeguarding of protected areas designated 
under the WFD. 

References to WFD objectives were not found 
in the other FRMP assessed - Abruzzo/Sangro 
(ITI023 and ITR131) - though they are 
mentioned in the reporting sheets for this and 
indeed all five UoMs. 

All five FRMPs assessed contain measures to 
address land use, including actions to address 
flood risks in urban plans and initiatives to 
relocate activities away from flood risk areas; 
however, few details on the actions to be 
taken are provided. 

Three of the five FRMPs assessed - those for 
the Eastern Alps (ITA), Central Apennines 
(ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) - 
included measures for nature conservation, 
such as the development of protocols for 
environmental protection and analysis for the 
impact of structural measures on the 
environment. 

16 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

Some evidence  

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Some evidence  

Little information was found in the five 
FRMPs assessed: the FRMP for the Eastern 
Alps (ITA) refers briefly to the completion of 
an inland navigation canal and its possible use 
as a floodway; the FRMP for Puglia and 
Ofanto (ITR161I020) mentions port 
infrastructure among the factors considered in 
the plan18. 

Italy's reporting sheets for all 47 UoMs state 
that climate change will be addressed in the 
updates of the FRMPs (i.e. in the second 
cycle), taking into account Italy’s Climate 
Change Adaptation Strategy - the Strategy 
was approved by the Ministry of Environment 
in June 201519. 
One FRMP, for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), 
refers to an analysis of climate impacts in on 
sub-basin and the plan includes a measure to 
evaluate the effects of climate changes on 
floods.  

18  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  in  many  RBDs  and  UoMs  –  including  the  Central  Apennines  (ITE), 
Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020)  and  Sardinia  (ITR201)  –  due  to  the  reduced  size  of  rivers,  few  are  used  for 
navigation. Italy also clarified that the FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto includes ports in  the  strategic infrastructure 
addressed for risk reduction. Within the analysis of the port infrastructure, actions for the reduction of coastal 
erosion are considered as a reduction factor of the risk of the flood from the sea. 

19  Italy  subsequently  informed  that  climate  change  was  not  taken  into  account  in  the  first  cycle  as  it  was  not 
compulsory.  However,  in  the  first  cycle,  for  some  UoMs  of  the  Northern  Apennines  RBD  (ITA),  a 
methodology for defining the predisposition for the occurrence of intense and concentrated phenomena (flash 
floods)  due  to  climate  change  has  been  developed.  In  the  Arno  UoM  (ITN002)  the  methodology  has  been 
applied  with  the  consequent  elaboration  of  the  flash  flood  hazard  maps  and  the  identification  of  specific 
prevention measures. Following the approval of the FRMPs, the methodology has been applied in other UoMs 
of  the  Northern  Apennines  RBD  (ITC),  and  it  will  be  applied  throughout  the  District  in  the  second  update 
cycle of the FRMPs.  
In all cases, the hydro-pluviometric data  used in the  first cycle  for the preparation of the FHRMs are being 
updated and therefore take into account climatic changes until 2012. 
For  Sardinia’s  FRMP,  an  analysis  of  the  National  Adaptation  Strategy  is  provided  in  the  Environmental 
Report of the Strategic Environmental Assessment. This document includes a comparison of the objectives of 
FRMP with those of SNACC:  
http://www.regione.sardegna.it/j/v/2420?s=1&v=9&c=14012&na=1&n=10&tb=14006&esp=1 )  

17 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Strong evidence  

Coordination ensured with 
WFD  

Some evidence  

The FRMP for the Eastern Alps (ITA RBD) 
reports ongoing coordination on flood risk 
management with Slovenian authorities for 
the shared Isonzo/Soca basin (UoM ITN004). 
The reporting sheet for the Po (ITN008) 
reports that coordination with French and 
Swiss authorities took place during the 
preparation of the Strategic Environmental 
Assessment (SEA) for this UoM plan20. 

The five FRMPs assessed provide different 
levels of information regarding coordination 
with the second River Basin Management 
Plans (RBMPs), with some providing 
examples of good practice such as assessing 
interactions of FRMP measures with the 
relevant RBMP21.  
For example, the Eastern Alps (ITA) FRMP 
identifies measures that provide synergies 
with the RBMP, those that are ‘win-win’ for 
both plans and those that can lead to possible 
conflicts between the two plans. The FRMP 
for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020 UoM) 
indicates that certain FRMP measures (e.g. for 
the re-naturalisation of rivers) will contribute 
to achieving good status of water bodies; 
moreover, the monitoring of the 
implementation of measures will consider 
WFD objectives.  

And as noted above, the FRMP for Sardinia, 
ITR201, includes objectives on water body 
status and protected areas as per the WFD22.  

20  Italy subsequently informed that for the cross-border territory of the Po river basin, informal agreements and 
information exchanges have been promoted, as indicated in the documentation for the SEA of the Po (ITN008) 
FRMP: 
http://www.adbpo.it/PDGA_Documenti_Piano/VAS/Rapporto_ambientale/Atti_Amministrativi/   

21  Italy  subsequently  noted  that  all  FRMPs  have  explicit  links  to  the  WFD  in  relation  to  shared  data 
(hydrographic  network,  protected  areas,  potential  sources  of  pollution  layers).  Measures  to  improve 
knowledge, remove receptors from flood prone areas and regulate land use are provide examples of win-win 
measures. 

22  Italy subsequently informed that the Environmental Report for the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the 
Sardinia  FRMP  contains  an  external  coherence  analysis  that  compares  the  objectives  of  the  FRMP  and  the 
RBMP. See: 
http://www.regione.sardegna.it/j/v/2420?s=1&v=9&c=14012&na=1&n=10&tb=14006&esp=1  

18 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

The reporting sheet for Sardinia states that 
coordination between FRMP and RBMP 
objectives was sought in the identification of 
FRMP measures and also via the NWRMs. 

While the FRMP for Abruzzo/Sangro, ITI023 
and ITR131) does not mention WFD 
objectives or other elements of coordination 
with the Directive, the reporting sheets for 
these UoMs state coordination included 
sharing of the knowledge base as well as the 
definition of measures; moreover, the 
authority for the ITE RBD, of which the 
UoMs are part, played a coordinating role to 
ensure coherence between FRMPs and the 
RBMP for the river basin district.  

The overall FRMP for the Central Apennines 
(ITE) notes that several types of measures will 
contribute to WFD objectives, including those 
providing room for the river. The 
prioritisation of measures includes their effect 
on the status of water bodies.  

Moreover, Italy has reported win-win 
measures for the FD and WFD in all 47 
UoMs23. 

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Some evidence  

All five FRMPs assessed refer to the active 
involvement of stakeholders via public 

23  Italy subsequently informed that the FRMP for the Po UoM (ITN008) identifies 159 win-win measures, with 
the  corresponding  code  of  the  KTM  and  measure  of  the  RBMP. This  information  is  provided  in  the  FRMP 
document "Programma di misure del Piano" downloadable at the link:  
http://www.adbpo.it/PDGA_Documenti_Piano/PGRA2015/Sezione_A/Relazioni/Programma_di_misure_del_
Piano/PROGRAMMA_MISURE.pdf    
Further information on the coordination with the WFD for this FRMP are available in the chapter 10 of the 
document "Relazione parte IIIA", downloadable at the link:  
http://www.adbpo.it/PDGA_Documenti_Piano/PGRA2015/Sezione_A/Relazioni/Parte_3A/3A_RELAZIONE
_Primo_PGRA_2015-2021.pdf  ) 
Information is also available in the document "Programma operativo per l'attuazione ed il monitoraggio delle 
misure del PGRA (POAMM)" (paragraph 2.7), downloadable at the link: 
http://pianoalluvioni.adbpo.it/monitoraggio/   
Moreover, the Northern Apennines RBD (ITC) has developed an Executive Information System to cluster the 
information regarding the implementation of the WFD. It is developed at water body level and it details the 
win-win measures shared with the Flood Directive. An example can be found at the following links: 
http://www.appenninosettentrionale.it/eis2/scheda_ci.php?cod=IT09CI_N002AR623FI2&wb=SW&dist=ITC
&lingua=ITA&scheda=7  
http://www.appenninosettentrionale.it/eis2/scheda_ci.php?cod=IT09CI_N002AR506FI&wb=SW&dist=ITC&
lingua=ITA&scheda=7  

19 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

meetings, though the level of information 
provided varies. Three of these five FRMPs - 
those for the Eastern Alps (ITA), Central 
Apennines (ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto 
(ITR161I020) - identify stakeholders that 
were actively involved, including both private 
groups such as businesses and NGOs, as well 
as public bodies, such as civil protection 
authorities. 

Good Practices 

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

Table 3 

Good practices in the Italian FRMPs 

Topic area 

Good practices identified 

Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk.  

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

Public consultation.  

Across all but two of Italy's 47 UoMs, a coordinated approach to 
objectives can be seen24: there are four common themes (protection of 
human health, economic activity, environment and culture heritage) 
under which each FRMP then presents its objectives.  

In at least one FRMP (ITA, Eastern Alps), the objectives were 
discussed with stakeholders. 

Four of the five FRMPs assessed have prioritised their measures 
using multicriteria analysis (three using an Italian national system and 
the fourth using a system adapted from Austria).  

Four of the five FRMPs assessed identify indicators to monitor the 
implementation of measures, two identifying indicators for measures 
and two for the FRMP as a whole. One FRMP assessed – for 
Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) – identifies a baseline value for each 
indicator. 

For ITA (Eastern Alps), a series of about 50 meetings for the public 
and stakeholders was held across the RBD territory and throughout 
the preparation period of the FRMP. The themes of the meetings were 
linked to the phases of development of the FRMP. A final set of 
meetings described the results of the consultation and active 
involvement process and presented an overview of how contributions 
had been addressed in the final version of the plan. Key materials 
from the meetings - agendas and presentations - are posted on the 

24  Qualifies as good practice taking into consideration the multifaceted set up in Italy. 

20 

 
 
 
                                                 
Topic area 

Good practices identified 

Flood risk governance.  

International issues in 
flood risk management25.  

ITA web site. For ITE (Central Apennines) as well, meetings were 
held across the RBD territory, and agendas and meeting materials are 
published online.  

The FRMP for ITA describes the mechanism for coordination among 
government bodies used for the preparation of the FRMP: a working 
group that brought together national ministries and other bodies, sub-
basin authorities, regional and autonomous province governments and 
irrigation bodies met 20 times over the course of 2015.  

Two of the FRMP assessed - for ITE Central Apennines and Sardinia 
(ITR201) - mention that a participative mechanism, river contracts, 
will be used in the implementation of the FRMPs at local level. 

In the Isonzo/Soca basin, shared between Italy (part of the Eastern 
Alps RBD (ITA) and within the RBD, the Isonzo UoM, ITN004) and 
Slovenia (the Adriatic UoM, SI_RBD_2), Italy and Slovenia have 
coordinated measures for alert systems and have agreed to pursue 
common Interreg projects for flood management. According to the 
FRMP, meetings of the joint commission between Italy and Slovenia 
will also monitor coordinated measures. 

Areas for further development 

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

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Italian FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

The five FRMPs assessed (as well as Italy's reporting sheets) state 
that the Plans are based on the prior steps, in particular the FHRMs. 
The FRMPs assessed do not, however, explain in detail26 how the 
FHRMs were used to prepare the FRMPs.  

25  Italy subsequently informed that Italy and France signed a cross-border agreement in 2013 for the shared basin 
of  the  Roja  river  (shared  between  Italy’s  Central  Apennines  RBD,  ITC,  and  France’s  Rhone-Mediteranée 
RBD,  FRD).  The  agreement  covers  implementation  of  the  objectives  of  Directives  2000/60/EC  and 
2007/60/EC. Information can be found in the FRMP for the Liguria UoM (ITR071):  
http://www.appenninosettentrionale.it/rep/pgra_eu/Relazione%20di%20Piano/PGRA_UoM_LIGURIA_ITR0
71/  

26  Italy  subsequently  noted  that  the  current  reporting  arrangements  did  not  facilitate  the  provision  of  detailed 

explanation of how FHRMs were used to prepare FRMPs. 
Italy  also  noted  that,  on  the  basis  of  risk  associated  to  flood  extent,  measures  are  defined  and  level  of 
prioritization is associated to them. Moreover, conveyance  routes are essential components of any  hydraulic 
modelling used for the preparation of hazard maps, so they are considered to define all measures where flow 
dynamics are involved (e.g. protection measures for flow regulation). 

21 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

While Italy and Slovenia have had ongoing exchanges of information 
and coordination, neither the FRMP for ITA (Eastern Alps) nor 
Italy’s reporting sheet for the Isonzo UoM (ITN004) specifies 
whether the identification of areas at risk of flooding or the 
preparation of FHRMs was carried out in coordination with Slovenia 
in the shared Isonzo/Soča catchment27. 

Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk.  

The objectives set out in Italy's FRMPs are not specific and 
measurable: they do not include quantitative targets, nor specific 
locations.  

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

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Use of CBA in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Public consultation.  

Flood risk governance.  

Although four of the five FRMPs assessed identify monitoring 
indicators, the five FRMPs do not provide a detailed description of 
how monitoring of the implementation of measures will be carried 
out, though the plans as well as Italy’s reporting sheets refer to a 
national database, ReNDiS, used to track implementation of measures 
financed by the national Ministry of Environment28. 

Funding sources for measures are defined at a high level. 

The five FRMPs assessed contain relatively limited information on 
climate change impacts. Based on Italy's reporting sheets, this 
appears to be the case for most of Italy’s FRMPs. The objectives of 
the FRMPs assessed do not refer to addressing climate change 
impacts and few measures related to climate change were identified. 

There is no reference in the FRMPs assessed to the national climate 
change adaptation strategy. 

Only two of the five FRMPs assessed – Sardinia, ITR201 and Puglia 
and Ofanto, ITR161I020 – refer to the use of CBA. On the basis of 
the information found, it appears that Italy has not extensively or 
consistently used cost-benefit analyses in the preparation of its 
FRMPs29. 

The information provided on the consultation process varies across 
the five FRMPs assessed: for several FRMPs, limited information is 
provided in the plans themselves (or in other sources, such as the 
UoM authority web sites) on the approach to consultation or its 
effects. 

Italy has prepared a great number of FRMPs, the system is elaborate 
and the relationships between different plans is not always clear: 
FRMPs are prepared at different levels, including RBD, UoM, 

27  Italy subsequently informed that an Interreg project with Slovenia, scheduled to start in 2019, will address risk 
management in shared river basins, including via the development of methodologies and technical tools for the 
implementation of the first cycle of FRMPs and the preparation of the updated FRMPs. 

28  Italy subsequently informed that, even though this web GIS application was implemented only for structural 

measures, it has been upgraded in order to monitor the level of implementation of all FRMPs measures. 

29  Italy subsequently noted that a CBA is not mandatory under the FD. 

22 

 
 
                                                 
Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

province and regional levels. Little information is provided in the 
FRMPs assessed - other than that for ITA - on coordination 
mechanisms at national level or among government bodies at 
different levels within the territory covered by the FRMP. For 
example, neither the FRMP for Abruzzo and Sangro UoMs (ITI023 
and ITR131) nor that for the Central Apennines RBD (ITE) describe 
coordination for the preparation of these two plans, even though the 
RBD includes the territory of the two UoMs30. 

Recommendations 

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

 

Italy's FRMPs should clearly describe how the PFRA stage of the flood risk management 
cycle (even if it predates the Floods Directive) was used to prepare the FHRMs under the 

FD, and how the FHRMs were used to prepare the FRMPs.  

  To  be  able  to  assess  progress,  Italy's  FRMPs  should  set  specific  and  measurable 
objectives  to  the  extent  possible.  How  objectives  and  measures  relate  to  each  other 

should be considered. 

 

Italy's  FRMPs  should  reinforce  climate  change  considerations 

in 

its  FRMPs. 

Coordination with  the  national  climate change adaptation  strategy should be elaborated 
in the FRMPs. 

  The FRMPs should consistently explain how monitoring of measures will be carried out.  

  Where possible, Italy should expand the use of CBA in the selection and prioritisation of 

measures. Funding sources for measures should be specified in more detail. 

30  Italy  subsequently  informed  that  in  the  first  FRMP  cycle,  although  Legislative  decree  49/2010  transposed 
Directive  2007/60/EC,  the  RBDs  had  not  yet  been  fully  established.  Transitory  legislation,  contained  in 
Legislative Decree 219/2010 (Article 4), established that the RBDs and the Regions, each according to their 
territorial  competence,  fulfil  the  requirements  foreseen  by  Directive  2007/60/CE.  The  RBDs  had  a 
coordinating role, to ensure the highest level of consistency of the FRMPs. In particular, even though UoMs at 
provincial  and  regional  levels  worked  independently  on  their  FRMPs,  they  followed  both  the  direction 
provided  by  the  territorially  competent  RBDs  and  national  guidelines  (DPCM  29/09/1998),  ensuring  a 
homogeneous  product.  Moreover,  the  RBDs  collected  each  FRMP  produced  by  the  UoMs  included  in  their 
territory  and  fitted  them  into  the  wider  frame  of  the  RBD  FRMP  and  took  care  of  Strategic  Environmental 
Assessment (SEA). 
Further,  an  important  development  since  the  publication  of  the  FRMPs  has  been  the  reform  of  the  RBD 
authorities and in particular the establishment of permanent authorities: this reform was launched in December 
2015  with  Law  221/2015  (which  under  art.  51  has  replaced  the  articles  63  and  64  of  Legislative  Decree 
152/2006 concerning district authorities and river basin districts). In October 2016, a Ministerial Decree (D.M. 
294 of 25.10.2016, Article. 4 paragraph 2) gave effect to the provisions of the 2015 Law and clarified that the 
District  Authorities  are  the  competent  authorities  pursuant  to  Art.  3  of  Directive  2007/60/EC.  These 
Authorities are fully operational today since the publication of d.p.c.m. ex art. 63 paragraph 4 of Legislative 
Decree 152/2006. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
 
  The  FRMPs  should  consistently  provide  information  on  the  process  for  public 
participation and active involvement of stakeholders or indicate where this information is 
available.   

  On  governance:  (1)  The  merits  of  common  national  approaches  should  be  considered, 
inter  alia  for  methods  not  found  in  the  first  cycle  of  FRMPs,  such  as  CBA  and 

identifying  and  addressing  climate  change  impacts.  (2)  Each  RBD  should  ensure  that 
cooperation mechanisms are established among  relevant  national  and RBD bodies,  and 

such coordination mechanisms should be described in the FRMPs. 

24 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

The  exact  number  of  FRMPs  prepared  in  Italy  is  unclear  from  Italy’s  reporting  as  the  plans 
prepared were not uploaded to WISE directly. For nearly all UoMs, a link is provided to a plan 
(see Annex A1 for an overview of Italy’s reporting)31  

A review of all the UoM reporting sheets moreover has shown that Italy did not make use of 
Article  13.3  of  the  Floods  Directive,  which  allowed  Member  States  to  make  use  of  previous 
flood  risk  management  plans  for  the  1st  cycle  (provided  their  content  is  equivalent  to  the 
requirements set out in the Directive). 

Concerning the geographic coverage of the FRMPs, there nonetheless is a mix of approaches 
used in Italy. Some FRMPs are prepared at UoM level, some at sub-UoM level, some at RBD 

level (covering more than one UoM) and in some RBDs, there are both RBD and lower-level 
plans. More specifically: 

 

in at least two RBDs, there is an overall FRMP that covers all UoMs within its territory: 

ITA, Eastern Alps and ITB, Po.  

  Another RBD does not have an overall FRMP, and instead FRMPs are prepared at UoM 

level: ITC, Northern Apennines.  

  A fourth  RBD has an overall  FRMP as well as  separate FRMPs  that cover the smaller 

UoMs: ITE, Central Apennines.  

  For ITF (Southern Apennines), an overall FRMP has been developed for the RBD; plans 

are also developed at regional level.  

  Some  UoMs  correspond  to  the  RBDs:  ITN008,  Po  (ITB  for  the  WFD),  Italy’s  largest 
UoM  and  RBD,  covering  several  regions  and  sub-basins;  and  ITR191,  Sicily,  and 

ITR201, Sardinia (corresponding to ITG and ITH, respectively) – each covering a single 
island region; ITSNP01, Serchio, a small “pilot” RBD (ITD) within the Tuscany Region. 

For each of these four UoMs/RBDs, a single FRMP was prepared. 

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

In order to cover the different FRMP approaches used in Italy, a selection of five FRMPs was 
assessed:  

31  In order to facilitate access to the FRMPs (in Italian PGRA - Piano Gestione Rischio Alluvioni), Italy created 
an ad-hoc table for their FD webpage. The table called "Adozione e approvazione dei PGRA" contains links to 
the FRMPs.  http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/pre_meteo/idro/Piani_gest.html 

25 

 
 
                                                 
 

ITA  Eastern  Alps  RBD,  covering  all  UoMs  within  this  RBD.  Nonetheless,  the  FRMP 

also includes as annexes two regional FRMPs, one each for the autonomous provinces of 
Trent and of Bolzano/Bozen: information in these annexed FRMPs is considered, where 

it  provides  additional  information.  Within  the  RBD’s  FRMP  the  assessment  considers 
transboundary issues in particular for the Isonzo UoM (ITN004). 

 

ITE  Central  Apennines  RBD:  here  too,  the  FRMP  covers  an  entire  RBD  and  multiple 
UoMs within it.  

  However,  there  are  separate  FRMPs  for  the  UoMs  within  the  ITE  RBD,  and  the 
assessment  included  the  single  FRMP  that  covers  both  the  Sangro  interregional  basin 

(ITI023) and Abruzzo Region (ITR131) UoMs.  

  The FRMP for the Puglia Region and the Ofanto River interregional basin (ITR161I020): 

this FRMP covers a UoM within the ITF, Southern Apennines, RBD.  

  The  FRMP  for  the  Sardinia  Region  (ITR201):  this  FRMP  covers  a  UoM  that  also 
matches  the  RBD  territory  and  the  regional  territory  of  this  island  region.  ITR201  was 

also covered in the FHRM assessment and areas for further development identified then 
in its FHRMs are revisited in this assessment.  

The  assessment  reviewed  the  FRMPs,  their  annexes  and  background  documents  where 

relevant,  and  also  Italy’s  reporting  sheets.  It  should  be  noted  that  Italy  provided  reporting 
sheets for each UoM, while some of the FRMPs were prepared at the level of RBD; moreover, 
one  FRMP  assessed  (Sangro  and  Abruzzo)  covers  two  UoMs.  Consequently,  the  reporting 

sheets do not always match the FRMPs.   

26 

 
 
 
 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

Italy  applied  Article  13.1(b)  of  the  Floods  Directive,  under  which  it  was  decided  not  to 

undertake the PFRA, as flood hazard maps, flood risk maps and flood risk management plans 
had been prepared before December 2010 for all areas of potential significant flood risk. All 

regions  in  Italy  were  required  to  prepare  a  “Piano  di  Assetto  Idrogeologico”  (Plan  of 
Hydrogeological  Status,  or  PAI)  under  the  national  legislation  (D.Lgs.  152/2006  art.  67, 

though the original requirement was set  out  in  D.L 180/1998). All  five FRMPs assessed cite 
these previous plans and indicate that they identified areas at risk of flooding. The FRMPs do 

not,  however,  describe  the  results  of  preliminary  flood  risk  assessment  in  those  plans  in  any 
detail32.  

In  four  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  summary  maps  which  indicate  areas  of  potential  flood 

risks were found within the FRMP report or its annexes:  

 

In the plan for the Eastern Alps (ITA) a summary map shows areas identified, however, a 
list  and  designation  of  areas  was  not  found  in  the  plan.  This  map  includes  the  RBD's 

shared catchments with Slovenia, Austria and Switzerland but it does not appear to show 
any shared APSFRs (and none are specified in the plan).  

  The FRMP for the Central Apennines (ITE) presents a summary map of APSFRs for the 
largest catchment of the RBD, the Tiber. Summary maps for other basins in ITE were not 
found33. 

  The FRMP for the Sangro and Abruzzo (ITR131 and ITI023) provides an overview map 

of risk areas. 

  The FRMP for Puglia and Ofanto (ITR161I020) provides a list of APSFRs in an annex to 

the main report; separate annexes provide maps of the areas.  

  The  FRMP  for  Sardinia  does  not  contain  summary  maps  but  refers  to  a  separate  file 

where these can be found34. 

32  Italy subsequently informed that this is because the PAI maps were more advanced and showed greater detail 
than APSFRs. These maps have been updated according to the new modelling results and most recent flood 
events in 2013 to be compliant to Article 6 of the FD. 

33  Italy subsequently informed that the summary maps for all river basins in the Central Apennines RBD (ITE) 

are available via the following web page: 
http://www.abdac.it/index.php/it/pianificazione-di-bacino-distrettuale/piano-di-gestione-del-rischio-
alluvioni/la-documentazione-del-piano-pgraac/gli-elaborati-del-piano-pgraac   

34  FRMPs for Eastern Alps (ITA), p.46 and  Fig. 40 on p. 56. Central Apennines (ITE), p.82 and p.127. Sangro 
and Abruzzo (ITR131 and ITI023), p. 27. Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), p.53, Annex D of the main report and 
Annex 3. For Sardinia (ITR201), separate map file. For Puglia and Ofanto (ITR161I020), separate map file. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
 
For all of the FRMPs assessed, more detailed maps – flood risk and hazard maps (FHRMs) that 
show the APSFRs – are available online for download (the links are provided below on page 

18). For two of the FRMPs assessed - Sardinia (ITR201) and Puglia and Ofanto (ITR161I020) 
- a summary map of APSFRs is also available for download.  

Links to maps of the APSFRs have been provided in some but not all of the FRMPs assessed:  

  Two of the five FRMPs (ITA and ITE) assessed provide links specifically to maps that 

show the APSFRs.  

  The FRMP for ITA (Eastern Alps) provides a link to the main web page of the authority 
for the RBD35 where maps can be downloaded from a page with links to detailed maps36 
for the RBD territory, showing areas  at  risk of flood  with  depths  under three scenarios 

(30, 100 and 300 year floods).  

  The FRMP for ITE (Central Apennines) provides links to the authorities for each UoM 
within the RBD: for example, the pages for the Tiber Basin37 provide flood hazard and 
flood risk maps, which indicate APSFRs.  

  The FRMP for Sangro and Abruzzo, ITR131 and ITI023, provides a link to the authority 

web page, where maps can be downloaded38. 

  The  FRMP  for  Puglia  and  Ofanto,  ITR161I020,  notes  that  the  authority’s  web  site 
contains an online GIS showing the APSFRs, but  does not  provide a direct  link to this 
mapping application. 

  The FRMP for Sardinia, ITR201, indicates that these maps are available online but does 

not provide a direct link39.  

Consequently,  for  all  five  plans  assessed,  the  web  sites  for  the  FRMPs  provide  separate 

FHRMs  for  download  that  show  APSFRs,  though  not  all  FRMPs  assessed  provide  either 
summary maps or direct links. 

In the five FRMPs assessed, no references were found to indicate that conveyance routes were 

taken into account  in  the PFRA stage. The  reporting sheets  related to  these UoMs, however, 

35  www.alpiorientali.it  
36  http://www.alpiorientali.it/direttiva-2007-60/consultazione-mappe/servizio-mappe-fhrm.html  
37  http://www.abtevere.it/node/1074  
38  http://autoritabacini.regione.abruzzo.it/index.php/psda 
39  Italy subsequently informed that for the Puglia/Ofanto UoM, maps are available online as attachments to the 

FRMP; moreover, a web-GIS is accessible from the regional authority’s web site:  
http://www.adb.puglia.it/public/news.php?extend.326.6 
In addition, links to maps for all UoMs in the Southern Apennines RBD (of which the Puglia/Ofanto UOM is 
one) can be found on the web site of the RBD authority: 
http://www.ildistrettoidrograficodellappenninomeridionale.it/dam_113.htm   
For Sardinia, maps from the PAI stage are available online:  
http://www.regione.sardegna.it/j/v/25?s=28677&v=2&c=8622  

28 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
state that conveyance routes were studied in the preparation of the flood hazard and flood risk 
maps40. In addition, the report on FHRMs annexed to the FRMP for Sardinia (ITR201) states 
that conveyance routes  were considered in a prior plan, the Piano stralcio delle fasce fluviali 
(Summary plan for fluvial areas), approved in 2015, but it is not clear how this influenced the 
FHRMs41 42. 

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

One of the five FRMPs assessed - ITA, Eastern Alps - shares catchments with other Member 
States – Slovenia and Austria – and with a third country, Switzerland. The FRMP states that 

the  shared  catchments  with  Austria  and  Switzerland  are  minor  and  do  not  involve  flood  risk 
issues; consequently, there have not been coordination activities. For Slovenia, flood issues in 

the shared catchment of the Isonzo/Soca are mentioned in the FRMP but it is not specified that 
the  identification  of  flood  risk  areas  was  coordinated;  Italy's  reporting  sheet  for  the  Isonzo 

(ITN004) also discusses cooperation with Slovenia but does not specify if the identification of 
flood risk areas was coordinated43 44. 

40   Reporting sheets; FRMPs. 
41   ITR201,  Report  on  flood  risk  and  hazard  maps  (Relazione  sulle  mappe  di  pericolosità  e  rischio  idraulico), 

March 2016, annex to the FHRM. 

42   Italy  subsequently  informed  that  for  Sardinia’s  FRMP,  the  tools  that  have  been  considered  are  the  Piano  di 
Assetto Idrogeologico (PAI), the Piano stralcio delle  fasce  fluviali (PSFF), the  hydrological studies  made at 
local  level  and  the  flood  areas  identified  after  specific  flood  events  (such  as  "Cleopatra"  in  2013). 
Furthermore,  in  defining  the  FRMP  P3  areas,  historical  flood  events  have  been  taken  into  account:  for  the 
main water courses (which have been studied by the PSFF) P3 hazard level are given by the envelope of the 
geomorphological areas (i.e. those identified by historical floods over centuries) with the hazard related to 500 
years of return time. In this way, historical events have been considered to draw the FHRM of Sardinia FRMP. 

   Eastern Alps (ITA), FRMP, pp. 10, 35 40, 79. UoM Reporting sheet. 

43
44   Italy  subsequently  informed  that  during  the  preparation  of  the  FRMP,  the  Eastern  Alps  RBD,  actively 
collaborated  in  the  work  managed  by  the  Permanent  Mixed  Italian-Slovenian  Commission  for  Water 
Management. In this forum, the implementation of Directive 2007/60/EC in both countries was discussed in 
detail, by sharing data and information about the relevant impact of floods (art. 5 FD) and the elaboration of 
flood hazard and risk maps (art. 6 FD). Priority measures to be adopted in the first phase of implementation of 
the respective plans (2016-2021) were also agreed: 
  a coordinated flood early warning system; 
  collaboration, raising awareness, information and communication activities with the public; 
 

identification of areas for "water retention" in the transboundary Vipacco basin (a sub-basin of the Isonzo). 
  The  maps  showed  some  discrepancies,  since  they  were  generated  by  considering  different  scenarios  and  by 
using different hydrological-hydraulic modeling tools. During a meeting held on 17 May 2016, the need for a 
common support for EU funded projects was shared, specifically initiatives dealing with: 
 
 

the realization of structural measures included in the plans; 
research  activities  to  be  performed  in  the  cross-border  Vipacco  sub-basin  for  the  implementation  of  a 
common flood risk management plan and consequently for a shared flood risk mapping. 

  Based on this, in March 2018 the Eastern Alps RBD submitted a strategic project proposal VISFRIM (Vipacco 
and Other Transboundary River Basins Flood Risk Management) in the context of the INTERREG ITA-SLO 
2014-2020 Program  (call  n.  05/2018),  elaborated  thanks  to  support  provided  by  both  Italian  (Friuli  Venezia 
Giulia and Veneto Regions, Venice Metropolitan Area) and Slovenian partners (the Environment Agency, the 
Ministry for the Environment and  Spatial Planning, the  municipalities of Miren-Kostanjevica, Nova Gorica, 
Postojna, Šempeter-Vrtojba, Vipava). As of mid-2018, the proposal was under evaluation. The main objective 
of this project would be to achieve an efficient management of the hydraulic risk in transboundary basins, such 

29 

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

Italy applied Article 13.1(b) of the Floods Directive and as a result did not undertake PFRAs 
under the FD. Instead, all regions in Italy were required to prepare a PAI as described  above. 

All five FRMPs assessed cite the PAIs as the starting point for the preparation of the FHRMs. 
The  FRMP  for  the  Eastern  Alps  (ITA)  presents  the  process,  which  included  the  analysis  of 
further  historical  flood  data  as  well  as  additional  modelling,  in  an  annex45.  In  Sardinia,  a 
separate volume describes the process: in this UoM, the FHRMs used both the PAI as well as a 
later plan on river floodplains, which studied fluvial flood risks in greater depth46. The FRMP 
for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) notes that the flood risk areas identified in the PAI provided 

the starting point for the FHRMs, which integrated further studies. 

The PFRAs appear not to have considered climate change. For example, the report on FHRMs 
for Sardinia (ITR201), annexed to the FRMP, states that currently available climate scenarios 

do  not  provide  hydrological  data  with  sufficient  detail  for  incorporation  in  the  FHRMs:  this 
will  be  addressed  by  CMCC,  the  Euro-Mediterranean  Centre  on  Climate  Change,  for  the 
second cycle of FRMPs47. One other FRMP assessed, for Puglia/Ofanto, includes a measure to 
assess climate impacts (see section 5).   

2.2 

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

Two of the five FRMPs assessed include summary flood risk and flood hazard maps within the 

plans: the FRMPs for the Central Apennines (ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020). As noted 
above, FHRMs are provided as annexes for all five plans. The FRMPs for Eastern Alps (ITA), 

Sangro  and  Abruzzo  (ITI023  and  ITR131)  and  Central  Apennines  (ITE)  specify  that  the 
FHRMs took in account the fluvial floods. None of the five indicate that pluvial floods were 

addressed  in  the  FHRMs.  Of  the  five  FRMPs,  only  the  FRMPs  for  the  Eastern  Alps  and 
Puglia/Ofanto  refer  to  seawater  floods.  None  of  the  five  FRMPs  make  a  reference  to  the 

inclusion of groundwater floods, floods from artificial water bearing structures, floods with no 
specific source or the combined effects of more than one source of flooding48.  

as  those  ones  considered  in  the  proposal  (the  international  Isonzo  and  Vipacco  river  basins  and  the 
interregional Lemene river basin), through the development of methodologies and technological tools for the 
implementation of the existing flood risk management plans and their next update in 2021. In particular, Work 
Package  3.2,  “Development  of  advanced  tools  for  flood  risk  estimation  and  cost  –  benefit  analysis  of 
mitigation measures”, plans the definition of a shared conceptual and modeling approach for the assessment of 
hydraulic risk in cross-border basins, its implementation in IT tools and finally the elaboration of harmonised 
hydraulic risk maps in the selected cross-border basins. 

45   FRMP ITA, Annex I.1. 
46   FRMP Sardinia, Re06 - Relazione sulle mappe della pericolosità e del rischio - aggiornamento marzo 2016. 

See: http://www.regione.sardegna.it/documenti/1_617_20160406121349.zip  

47   FRMP main reports. FRMP Puglia/Ofanto, p. 43. 
48   FRMPs assessed. 

30 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
The assessment of Italy’s FHRMs also found variations across the UoMs and that not all flood 

sources  were  addressed.  The  FHRM  assessment  reviewed  seven  UoMs  and  found  that  all 
addressed  fluvial  floods,  but  only  two  explicitly  addressed  pluvial  floods  and  only  three 
addressed  seawater  floods.  No  information  was  found  on  other  sources  of  flooding49,  50.  As 
Italy  did  not  report  under  the  PFRA  step,  a  complete  picture  of  flood  sources  in  Italy  is  not 

available.   

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

The FRMP for ITA (Eastern Alps) provides a link to the main web page of the authority for the 

RBD - www.alpiorientali.it - stating that maps can be downloaded at this site. The web site has 
a page with links to detailed maps51 for the RBD territory.  

The FRMP for ITE (Central Apennines) provides links to the authorities for each UoM within 
the  RBD:  for  example,  for  the  Tiber  Basin  -  http://www.abtevere.it/node/1074  -  the  pages 

provide flood hazard and flood risk maps. 

For  the  other  FRMPs  assessed,  though  links  were  not  found  in  the  FRMPs,  the  FHRMs  are 
nonetheless technical annexes to the FRMPs and are available online: 

  For Sardinia (ITR201), as PDFs: 

http://www.regione.sardegna.it/j/v/2420?s=1&v=9&c=14013&es=6603&na=1&n=10&t
b=14006&esp=1  

  For Puglia and Ofanto (ITR161I020), both as PDFs and on a web GIS viewer: 

http://www.adb.puglia.it/public/page.php?96  

  For Abruzzo and Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131), as PDFs: 

http://autoritabacini.regione.abruzzo.it/index.php/carta-della-pericolosita-psda  

49   European Commission, Assessment of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps – Member State Report: IT – Italy, 

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

50   Italy  subsequently  informed  that  the  sources  of  flooding  considered  for  each  UoM  are  the  most  relevant  in 
terms of hazard and potential impacts and consequences. In general, seawater and fluvial floods are the most 
relevant  sources  of  flooding  in  Italy.  There  is  however  local  variation:  for  example,  the  flood  sources 
evaluated in the Ofanto UoM are fluvial (mainly for the rivers of northern part of the UoM), pluvial (e.g. in 
endorheic basins) and seawater (on the coast, as at Ofanto river's mouth).  

51   http://www.alpiorientali.it/direttiva-2007-60/consultazione-mappe/servizio-mappe-fhrm.html  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

One of the five FRMPs assessed, ITA, shares catchments with neighbouring countries: Austria, 
Slovenia  and  Switzerland.  The  FRMP  provides  an  overview  of  cooperation  on  flood  issues 

with  Slovenia  (pp.  78-9)  but  does  not  specify  that  there  are  shared  flood  risk  areas,  nor  if 
mapping has been coordinated;  no information  was found either in  Italy's reporting sheet  for 

the shared  Isonzo UoM (ITN004). The  FRMP states that the shared catchments  with  Austria 
and Switzerland are minor and do not involve flood risk issues; consequently, there have not 
been coordination activities52. 

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

The FRMPs (as well as Italy's reporting sheets) state that the plans are based on the prior steps, 
in particular the FHRMs. Nonetheless, neither the FHRMs nor the reporting sheets explain in 

detail  how  the  FHRMs  were  used  to  develop  the  plans  or  their  priorities,  objectives  or 
measures53.  

An  annex  on  non-structural  measures  to  Sardinia’s  FRMP  includes  a  list  of  key  elements 
exposed  to  flood  risk  (such  as  cultural  heritage  sites  and  critical  infrastructure)  and  on  this 

basis  develops  a  brief  analysis  of  key  areas  for  further  assessment,  planning  and  other 
initiatives54. 

The reporting sheets for the five UoMs provide an overview of the analytical steps undertaken 

for the development  of the FHRMs, and they indicate that the FHRMs were used to  identify 
objectives  and  measures.  In  some  cases,  specific  examples  are  provided:  the  summary  for 

ITN004 (Isonzo) indicates that the maps were used to identify potential pollution sources and 
thus to develop measures to address potential pollution in the event of flooding55.  

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,  indicated  in  the  FRMP.  As  noted 
above, Italy applied Art. 13.1(b) and identified flood risk areas in previous plans. In the FRMP 

for  Puglia  and  Ofanto  (ITR161I020),  it  is  indicated  that  the  flood  maps  prepared  in  2013 

52   FRMP for ITA, p. 78 and elsewhere. 
53   Italy  subsequently  noted  that  the  current  reporting  arrangements  did  not  facilitate  the  provision  of  detailed 
explanation of how FHRMs were used to prepare FRMPs. Italy also noted that the reduction of risk level for 
the different categories of elements at risk is a declared objective for every FRMP. Priorities and in particular 
the  prioritization  process  applied  to  measures  was  based  on  level  of  risk  (damage/likelihood)  so  the  link 
between FHRM and FRMP is evident and clear. 

54   Italy subsequently indicated that other annexes to Sardinia’s FRMP provide further details on the use of the 

FHRMs in the preparation of the plan. 

55   UoM reporting sheets; FRMPs. 

32 

 
 
                                                 
included  new  areas  at  risk  of  flooding  not  identified  in  the  early  PAI.  No  information  was 
found in the other four FRMPs assessed or in the reporting sheets for these FRMPs to indicate 
that changes were made to the APSFRs since 2011 or to the FHRMs since December 201356. 

2.4 

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

The FHRM assessment identified the following areas for further development for Italy: 

 

International UoMs, Art. 6(2): Italy did not report information on information exchange 

for the production of maps between Member States sharing international UoMs and how 
it was ensured that coherent maps were produced between the relevant Member States.  

  Water depth/level, Art. 6(4)(b): some UoMs (e.g. ITR091, ITR121, ITR201, ITN010) did 
not report the water depth/level in the FHRMs, and the reasons for the non-inclusion of 
this element were not provided57.  

 

Inhabitants  affected  Art. 6(5)(a): some UoMs (e.g.  ITR091  and  ITR201)  did  not  report 

the  number  of  inhabitants  affected,  and  the  reasons  for  the  non-inclusion  of  these 
elements were not provided.  

  Type of economic activity Art. 6(5)(b): none of the UoMs reviewed showed the type of 
economic  activities  in  their  FHRMs,  and  the  reasons  for  the  non-inclusion  of  these 
elements were not provided.  

 

Industrial installations and WFD areas Art. 6(5)(c): according to Article 6(5)(c), Member 

States  should  report  installations  under  the  IPPC  Directive  (96/61/EC)  and  potentially 

affected protected areas identified in annex IV (i) (iii) and (v) to the Water Framework 
Directive (2000/60/EC). Some UoMs assessed (e.g. ITR091 and ITR201) did not report 

the location of these installations.  

 

Italy did not report adverse consequences on the environment in the mapping of the risk 

from low probability floods, and the reasons for the non-inclusion of these elements were 
not provided58.  

56   For  Sardinia,  it  appears  that  FHRMs  for  coastal  areas  subject  to  seawater  flooding  were  updated  in  2017, 
according to information on the FRMP web site, but it is not clear if this also updated the areas.  FRMPs and 
reporting sheets. Sardinia Region, FRMP web site: 
http://www.regione.sardegna.it/j/v/2420?s=1&v=9&c=14012&na=1&n=10&tb=14006&esp=1  

57  Italy  subsequently  explained  that  only  2d  hydraulic  modelling  produces  an  appropriate  description  of  water 
depth/level.  In  many  cases  flooded  areas  were  defined  by  1d  models  or  by  historical  or  geomorphological 
methods. 

58   Italy subsequently informed that all the probabilities (low, medium, high) were considered to evaluate the risk 
and that all the APSFRs related to environmental impacts were identified in order to arrive at the actions for 
reducing  the  risk.  In  fact,  according  to  Italy,  all  the  maps  show  the  possible  negative  consequences  on  the 
environment, since they consider the elements exposed to flood risk which can give rise to pollution of water, 
soil and the environment in general. 

33 

 
 
                                                 
 
  Flood Sources: not all sources of flood were identified in the FHRMs59. Although from 
the  methodology  for  hazard  maps  it  seems  that  fluvial  and  pluvial  floods  have  been 
considered  together,  this  is  not  explicitly  explained,  nor  graphically  represented  on  the 

maps. Coastal floods were explicitly identified only in few UoMs, but there is less detail 
available than for the fluvial floods. It was not clear which sources had been considered, 

nor how.  

  Application  of  Art.  6(6):  it  is  not  clear  in  which  areas  within  UoMs  Article  6(6)  was 
applied  (preparation  of  flood  hazard  maps  for  coastal  areas  only  for  extreme  event 
scenarios). 

In  many  of  the  areas  for  further  development  identified,  maps  for  ITR201  (Sardinia)  were 

cited. Consequently, the analysis has focused where appropriate on this UoM:  

  On information exchange between Member States for the production of maps, one of the 
FRMPs  assessed  -  ITA,  Eastern  Alps  -  includes  shared  catchments  with  Austria  and 

Slovenia (as well as a non-EU MS, Switzerland). The FRMP for ITA indicates that Italy 
and  Slovenia  collaborated  on  studies  and  the  analysis  of  critical  issues  for  the 

international  Isonzo/Soca  basin  (UoM  ITN004  in  Italy),  as  well  as  measures,  but  the 
FRMP  does  not  provide  any  information  regarding  exchanges  for  the  production  of 
maps60.  

  Regarding  information  on  water  depth/level  in  the  FHRMs,  while  this  was  found  for 
maps  linked  to  some  FRMPs  (e.g.  ITA),  water  depth/level  was  not  found  in  maps  for 
ITR091, ITR121, ITR20161 or ITN010. It appears that this area for further development 
still needs to be addressed in full.  

  For ITR201, maps prepared for each municipality indicate the number of inhabitants in 
flood  risk  areas  and  the  number  at  risk  under  different  flood  scenarios.  For  Sardinia  at 
least, this area for further development has been addressed.  

  The  report  on  FHRMs  in  ITR201  indicates  that  industrial  and  commercial  areas  are 
identified on the maps. Consequently, this area for further development has been at least 
partially addressed.  

59   Italy subsequently commented that the sources of flooding considered for each UoM  are those that are  “the 
most  relevant  in  terms  of  “hazard”  and  “potential  impact/consequences”.  In  general,  seawater  and  fluvial 
floods  are  the  most  relevant  sources  of  flooding  in  Italy  (e.g.  Sardinia  considered  both  coastal  and  fluvial 
sources). 

60   Italy  subsequently  informed  that  during  the  preparation  of  the  FRMP,  the  Eastern  Alps  RBD  actively 
collaborated  in  the  work  managed  by  the  Permanent  Joint  Italian-Slovenian  Commission  for  Water 
Management. In this forum, the implementation of Directive 2007/60/EC in both the countries was discussed 
in detail, by sharing data and information about the relevant impact of floods (art. 5 FD) and the elaboration of 
flood hazard and risk maps (art. 6 FD). 

61   Italy  subsequently  informed  that  this  information  is  found  in  a  separate  set  of  documents,  the  Scenari  di 
intervento  strategic  and  coordinato  (Scenarios  of  strategic  and  coordinated  intervention).  In  addition,  the 
Piani Stralcio di Fascia Fluviale (Plans for River Floodplains) provide both water levels and water speed.  

34 

 
 
                                                 
  The  report  on  FHRMs  in  ITR201  indicates  that  IPPC  installations  are  identified  in  the 
maps,  and  a  series  of  separate  online  documents  provides  maps  for  such  installations. 
The maps for the Puglia/Ofanto UoM also identify industrial installations, distinguishing 

those  presenting  significant  environmental  risks,  including  IPPC  installations,  from 
others.  Consequently,  this  area  for  further  development  has  been  at  least  partially 

addressed.  

  With  regard  to  low-probability  floods,  the  FHRM  report  for  ITR201  cites  national 
legislation  (D.Lgs  49/2010)  that  calls  for  three  scenarios,  including  low-probability 
floods  (those  occurring  once  every  200  to  500  years).  The  annexes  to  the  FRMP  for 

ITR201  include  maps  of  Natura  2000  sites,  showing  how  they  are  affected  under 
different  flood  scenarios  -  consequently,  in  at  least  one  UoM,  this  area  for  further 

development  has been  addressed.  In contrast,  in  the FHRMs for the Central  Apennines 
RBD  (ITE),  IPPC  installations  are  indicated  but  environmental  areas  such  as  Natura 

2000 sites are not.  

  Based  on  the  five  FRMP  assessed  and  the  maps  examined,  the  FHRMs  still  present 
fluvial and pluvial floods together. With regard to coastal floods, four FRMPs assessed 
refer  to  coastal  flooding:  ITR201  (Sardinia),  ITA  (Eastern  Alps),  ITE  (Central 

Apennines)  and  Puglia  and  Ofanto  (ITR161I020).  For  ITR201,  detailed  maps  of  risks 
and hazards from  seawater flooding are annexed  to  the FRMP. No reference to  coastal 

flooding  was  found,  however,  in  the  FRMP  for  Abruzzo/Sangro.  On  the  basis  of  the 
information gathered, it is not clear if this area for further development was addressed.  

  For ITR201, the flood hazard maps for coastal areas cover a range of scenarios, including 
2-year  and  20-year  flood  events  (as  well  as  100-year  events).  However,  based  on  the 

reporting sheets and the FRMPs, it is not possible to identify which of Italy’s UoMs have 
applied Art. 6(6)62 63.  

2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following areas for further development are identified: 

  The  five  FRMPs  assessed  (as  well  as  Italy’s  reporting  sheets)  state  that  the  plans  are 
based on the prior steps, in particular the FHRMs. The FRMPs assessed do not, however, 

explain in detail how the FHRMs were used to prepare the FRMPs.  

62   FRMPs assessed. For ITR201, Report on flood risk and hazard maps (Relazione sulle mappe di pericolosità e 
rischio idraulico), March 2016, annex to the FRMP; Atlas of the zones of interference between Natura 2000 
sites and areas of flood risk (Atlante delle zone di interferenza tra i siti Natura 2000 e  le aree di pericolosità 
idraulica), six volumes, annex to the FRMP, March 2016. Available at: 
http://www.regione.sardegna.it/j/v/2420?s=1&v=9&c=14012&na=1&n=10&tb=14006&esp=1) 

63  Italy subsequently stated that Art. 6(6) was not applied. 

35 

 
 
                                                 
  While Italy and Slovenia have had ongoing exchanges of information and coordination, 
neither the FRMP for ITA (Eastern Alps) nor Italy’s reporting sheet for the Isonzo UoM 
(ITN004)  specifies  whether  the  identification  of  areas  at  risk  of  flooding  or  the 

preparation  of  FHRMs  was  carried  out  in  coordination  with  Slovenia  in  the  shared 
Isonzo/Soča catchment.  

36 

 
 
 
 
3. Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

All  five  FRMPs  assessed  group  their  objectives  around  four  key  themes  from  the  Floods 

Directive:  human  health,  cultural  heritage,  environment  and  economic  activities.  The  FRMP 
for the Eastern Alps (ITA), for example, specifies that its four objectives are the reduction of 

adverse  consequences  to  each  of  these  four  themes.  The  FRMPs  for  Abruzzo  and  Sangro 
(ITI023  and  ITR131)  and  Sardinia  (ITR201)  also  refer  to  the  “reduction  of  adverse 

consequences”. Other FRMPs assessed refer instead to the “reduction of risk”: this is the case 
for the plans for the Central Apennines (ITE), Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020).  

For each theme, the FRMPs identify specific objectives that are broadly similar but with some 

variation  from  one  plan  to  another  (see  Annex  A2  for  the  objectives  in  each  of  the  FRMPs 
assessed).  For  example,  under  human  health,  the  FRMP  for  Puglia/Ofanto  has  three  specific 

objectives  to  reduce  risk  for:  human  health,  human  life,  and  for  key  structures  that  provide 
services  for  domestic  and  other  users  –  hospitals,  water  supply  and  electricity  supply.  The 

FRMP for the Eastern Alps has two specific objectives: protection of health from both direct 
impacts and indirect impacts that could arise from pollution of the interruption of services such 

as  water;  protection  of  communities  from  adverse  consequences,  such  as  impacts  on  local 
governance, emergency interventions, schools and health and social services.  

A  review  of  the  reporting  sheets  of  all  the  47  UoMs  shows  that  44  follow  this  approach  for 
objectives.  Italy’s  largest  UoM,  the  Po,  instead  uses  a  different  approach.  In  addition,  two 

UoMs (ITR081, Emilia-Romagna Region, and ITI01319, Conca-Marecchia, which lies in part 
in Emilia-Romagna) a third approach is used: 29 objectives are listed; they are not grouped in 

larger categories and appear closely related to measures. For all UoMs, the objectives address 
human health, cultural heritage, environment and economic activities. 

The five FRMPs assessed include objectives to reduce the adverse consequences of floods. In 

addition, the text discussing objectives in the FRMP for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITR131 and ITI023) 
refers  to  the  reduction  of  the  likelihood  of  flood  risk:  declaring  that  “the  mitigation  of  risks 

have  to  be  developed  through  a  set  of  provisions  which  aim  to  reduce  the  likelihood  and 
impact of floods”.  

The  FRMPs  also  indicate  that  their  measures  were  selected  to  achieve  the  objectives.  The 
measures cover prevention, preparedness, protection and recovery; all the FRMPs indicate that 
prevention  is  a  priority  and  measures  seek  to  improve  knowledge  of  the  areas  at  risk  of 
flooding and increase efforts to reduce vulnerability. Furthermore, in the FRMPs the objectives 

37 

 
 
are  qualified  with  different  level  of  priorities  and  the  “protection  for  the  human  health”  is 
recognized as the most important one. 

These objectives apply to the five FRMPs assessed. Consequently, in the FRMPs assessed64: 

  The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods.  

  The objectives in some FRMPs explicitly aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding.  

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

For the five FRMPs assessed, the objectives themselves do not include quantitative targets, nor 
specific  locations.  They  do  not  specify  measures  or  a  time  frame  for  their  achievement. 

Nonetheless, as noted above, the choice of measures was linked to the objectives (and for the 
measures, specific locations are identified – see section 4). 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

As  indicated  above,  the  objectives  of  all  the  plans  are  structured  around  the  four  themes  of 

human health, cultural heritage, environment and economic activity. Three of the five FRMPs 
refer  direct  to  the  reduction  of  adverse  consequences;  the  other  two  refer  to  the  reduction  of 

flood risk, which includes both adverse consequences as well as the reduction of the likelihood 
of flooding. 

All  the  FRMPs  then  contain  specific  objectives  to  reduce  adverse  consequences,  such  as: 

protection  of  human  health  from  the  pollution  or  interruption  of  water  supplies,  protection 
from  the  interruption  or  adverse  consequences  on  essential  public  services  (like  hospitals, 

schools, local  authorities), protection  from  negative damages and impact  on the environment 
and from  pollution of water sources, protection of natural  parks and landscape, protection of 

agriculture, other economic activities and properties. 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

The objectives of two of the five FRMPs assessed refer to the reduction of risk, which includes 
both adverse consequences as well as the reduction of the likelihood of flooding65 66.  

64   These categories are included in Art. 7 of the Floods Directive. 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. 

65    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. 

38 

 
 
                                                 
Reduction of the  likelihood of flooding is  moreover directly  addressed  by measures67.  In the 
FRMP  for  Sangro  and  Abruzzo  UoM  (ITI023  and  ITR131),  for  example,  the  text  refers  to 

reduction in the likelihood of flooding; however, this appears to be a reference to the measures 
and is not listed in the objectives themselves. Indeed, reduction in the likelihood of flooding is 

among the criteria for prioritising measures in Italy (see section 4). 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

None  of  the  FRMPs  specify  that  objectives  were  coordinated  at  either  national  or  regional 
level. Nonetheless, it appears that the objectives were coordinated at national level, as the five 

FRMPs  assessed  -  and  all  but  two  of  the  UoM  reporting  sheets  -  present  their  objectives 
grouped  around  the  four  themes  taken  from  the  Directive.  Moreover,  it  is  expected  that 

objectives were coordinated at regional level,  as all of the regions are identified amongst the 
competent authorities for the FRMPs. 

The  reporting  sheets  moreover  state  that  specific  objectives  were  set  on  the  basis  of  the 

FHRMs and their identification of specific territorial conditions and the flood risks and hazards 
identified in each UoM. 

Only  one  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  clearly  indicates  that  objectives  were  discussed  with 
stakeholders:  For  Eastern  Alps  (ITA),  the  objectives  were  discussed  during  the  public 

consultation with stakeholders.  

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

Good practices with respect to the formulation of objectives are the following: 

  Across all but two of Italy’s 47 UoMs, a coordinated approach to objectives can be seen: 
they  are  grouped  around  the  four  themes  from  the  Floods  Directive  –  protection  of 
human health, cultural heritage, environment and economic activities – under which each 

FRMP then sets its objectives.  

 

In  at  least  one  FRMP  (ITA,  Eastern  Alps),  the  objectives  were  discussed  with 

stakeholders. 

66   Italy subsequently remarked that the assessment of the likelihood of flooding is based on procedures that are 
valid for the whole national territory and consist in estimating the maximum flows for the assigned return time 
and are based on a statistical-probabilistic approach deriving from past events. 

67   Subsequently,  Italy  informed  that  with  regard  to  structural  measures  and  referring  to  the  strategic  scenarios 
developed  for  some  water  courses,  several  interventions  foresee  “hydraulic  arrangement”  and  “risk 
mitigation”.  These  interventions  aim  at  increasing  the  return  time  related  to  the  events  that  can  be  safely 
tolerated  by  the  “hydrologic  system”,  thus  contributing  in  reducing  the  probability  of  the  flood  event  (for 
instance, increase of critical return period from 25 years to 75 years). 

39 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
Areas for further development include: 

  The objectives set  out  in  Italy’s  FRMPs are not  specific  and measurable: they  do not 

include quantitative targets, nor specific locations.  

40 

 
 
 
 
4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Across all its UoMs, Italy reported 1 605 individual measures and 6 741 aggregated68 measures 
for  a  total  of  8  346  measures69  70  (the  FRMPs  do  not,  however,  explain  how  individual  and 
aggregated measures are defined). The average number of measures per UoM is 241. Some of 
the national measures are assigned to more than one measure type71. To compare the number 
of measures by type, a total count is used that includes each time a measure is allocated to a 
measure type (this implies double-counting): this raises the total to 10 064 measures72. 

Italy reported measures across all four aspects – prevention, protection, preparedness, recovery 
and review – as well for the category of “other” and nearly all measure types. Italy reported a 

total  of  3  502  prevention  measures  (35  %  of  all  measures),  4  566  total  protection  measures 
(45%), 1 572 preparedness measures (16 %), 408 recovery and review measures (4 %) and 16 

“other” measures (less than 1 % of all measures).  

Please see Annex A for supplementary tables and charts on measures for this and subsequent 

questions in this section. 

4.1 

Cost of measures 

Table 5 

Overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMPs 

FRMP 

ITA 

ITR201 

ITI023 and ITR131 

ITE 

ITR161I020 

Estimated overall budget of planned measure/s (2015-2021) in EUR 

1 380 m 

1 617 m * 

- 

- 

783.5 m 

Note: for Sardinia (ITR201), the costs refer to structural measures.  

68   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. 

69   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.  

70  Italy  subsequently  informed  that  there  was  a  reporting  inaccuracy  and  the  correct  numbers  should  be:  1  605 

individual measures, 6 743 aggregated measures and 8 348 total measures. 

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

71
72  Italy subsequently informed that there was a reporting  inaccuracy and that the total count that includes each 

time a measure is allocated to a measure type is 10 067. 

41 

 
 
                                                 
Cost information about the measures is provided in three of the five FRMPs assessed, namely 
in Eastern Alps (ITA), Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) and Sardinia (ITR201).  

The Eastern Alps (ITA) FRMP provides an estimated overall budget of planned measures. This 

FRMP also breaks down the budget by UoM within the RBD and by measure aspect. A second 
FRMP, Sardinia (ITR201), provides the cost of each structural measure and the total cost for 

all  structural  measures:  estimated  at  €1  617  m.  Information  about  the  costs  of  non-structural 
measures is not available73.  

The Puglia/Ofanto FRMP (ITR161I020) indicates a total cost of €783.5 m, the lion’s share of 

which (754 m) is for measures in the territory of the Puglia Region, which accounts for most of 
the  UoM  territory;  smaller  amounts  are  for  measures  in  the  Basilicata  Region  (€25  m)  and 

Campania Region (€4.5 m). The FRMP also indicates the cost by priority of measure, with the 
bulk for the highest priority measures: €107 m for critical priority measures (about 14 % of the 

total); and €460 m for very high priority measures (59 %).     

For the Central Apennines (ITE), some information is found in the lists of measures for sub-

basins;  however, no information  on costs of measures was found for the largest  sub-basin  of 
this RBD, the Tiber; moreover, no information on costs was found in the list of measures for 
the Abruzzo/Sangro FRMP (ITI023 and ITR131)74. 

Information  provided  in  the  reporting  sheets  indicates  that  Italy  reported  the  costs  for  450 
measures  spread  over  three  UoMs  (ITR161I020,  ITR191,  ITSNP01).  The  reported  costs 

ranged from less than €1 m to over €20 m, the majority of the measures (around 51 %) with 
costs in the range €1-5 m (for details see Tables A5 and A6 in Annex A). 

4.2 

Funding of measures 

The five FRMPs assessed provide some information on funding sources, though none provides 

a comprehensive overview.  

73   Italy  commented  subsequently  that  the  costs  related  to  non-structural  measures  have  not  been  provided 
because  of  their  possible  variability  due  to  the  number  and  mix  of  stakeholders  involved.  These  measures 
consist  of  activities  such  as  citizen  education,  involvement  of  scholars  and  similar  activities  that  are  highly 
variable  and  depending  on  stakeholder  response  -  and  therefore  difficult  to  quantify.  Furthermore,  Italy 
explains.  Non-structural  measures  such  as  directives  and  rules  for  land  use  are  not  directly  connected  to  a 
budget since they fall into the institutional activities of the river basin district’s authority. 

74   Abruzzo/Sangro's  FRMP  annex  (ITI023+ITR131),  "Misure  strutturali  e  non  strutturali",  6.  FRMPs  for 
Sardinia  (ITR201),  Alpi  orientali  (ITA)-p.161,  Central  Apennines  (ITE)  and  Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020)-
p.99,100.  For  Sardinia,  the  reports  on  structural  and  non-structural  measures  (Relazione  sulle  misure  non 
strutturali; Relazione sugli interventi infrastrutturali), both dated March 2016. 

42 

 
 
                                                 
  The  FRMP  for  the  Eastern  Alps  (ITA)  provides  two  brief  references  to  national  and 

provincial funds.  

  For  the  Puglia/Ofanto  FRMP  (ITR161I020),  an  overview  of  funding  sources  is  not 
provided, but references are made to the use of national, regional and local budgets; EU 
funds in general  and the European Agricultural  Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) 

in particular are also highlighted.  

  For Sardinia (ITR201), the report on structural measures refers to national and regional 

budgetary sources.  

  The FRMP for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131) mentions the use of regional and 

local budgets for some measures.  

  The  FRMP  for  the  Central  Apennines  (ITE)  refers  to  the  use  of  national  and  regional 

budgets75. 

Table 6 

Funding of measures 

ITR161I020 

ITA 

ITR201 

ITI023, 
ITR131 

ITE 

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 

Only some of the FRMPs assessed include a clear and explicit description of the measures with 

regard to:  

75   FRMPs  for  Sardinia  (ITR201),  Alpi  orientali  (ITA),  Abruzzo/Sangro  (ITI023+ITR131),  Central  Apennines 

(ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020). 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  What they are trying to achieve, 

  How they are to be achieved, and 

  By when they are expected to be achieved. 

The  FRMPs  assessed  provide  information  on  where  measures  are  to  be  achieved.  The 

measures  indicate  the  level  of  location,  in  most  cases  this  is  the  RBD/UoM,  sub-basin  or 
APSFR. 

Table 7 

Location of measures  

ITA 

ITI023, 
ITR131 

ITE 

ITR201 

ITR161I020 

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other 
specific risk area  

Water body level  

Municipalities, rivers 
and also specific 
points, such as bridges 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

The extent of information varies across the five FRMPs assessed. The list of measures in the 

FRMP  for  the  Eastern  Alps  (ITA)  includes  a  detailed  classification  of  the  intervention, 
including the timetable for the measure. For Sardinia (ITR201), the list of measures indicates 

the timetable. The list of measures for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131), in contrast, does 
not include a clear timetable, nor do the lists for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) and the Central 

Apennines (ITE). 

Four  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  –  Eastern  Alps  (ITA),  Abruzzo/Sangro  (ITI023,  ITR131), 

Central  Apennines  (ITE)  and  Sardinia  (ITR201)  –  list  specific  locations  for  their  measures. 
This  is  not  the  case  for  the  Puglia/Ofanto  FRMP  (ITR161I020),  which  groups  measures  in 
terms of sub-basins and does not list specific locations76.  

76   Alpi  orientali  (ITA),  FRMP,  Annex  2,  table  1  and  2,  Annex  3.  Central  Apennines  (ITE),  FRMP,  p.163. 

Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023+ITR131), par.6. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.4  Measures and objectives 

In  the  FRMPs  assessed,  it  is  not  clear  how  measures  will  contribute  to  the  achievement  of 
objectives,  nor  clear  by  how  much  they  will  contribute77.  It  is  also  not  clear  whether  the 
objectives will be achieved when all measures are completed. This due in large part to the fact 

that the measures themselves are not specific or measurable (see section 3).  

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

Italy has reported 2 282 different responses for the location of the measures across all its UoMs 
in  the  reporting  sheets.  A  quantitative  analysis  is  therefore  unfeasible.  The  FRMPs  for  the 

Eastern  Alps  (ITA),  Abruzzo/Sangro  (ITR131  and  ITI023)  and  Central  Apennines  (ITE) 
provide  information  about  the  specific  location  of  measures,  referring  to  the  city,  river,  and 
even specific point (e.g. a bridge)78.  

Italy reported information about the geographic coverage of the impacts of measures for 1458 

measures in  eight  UoMs (ITI01319,  ITI021,  ITN002, ITR051,  ITR081,  ITR111, ITR191  and 
ITSNP01) in  the reporting sheets79. However, the  responses vary and aggregation of the data 
into a small number of categories is not feasible. No information was found in the five FRMPs 
assessed: for example, in the detailed list of measures for ITA (Eastern Alps), which follows 

the  structure  of  the  reporting  questions,  the  column  for  geographic  coverage  is  blank  for  all 
measures. 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

Italy reported the priority for 9 055 measures (90 % of the total 10 064 measures) as ten UoMs 

did  not  report  any  information  regarding  the  category  of  priority  (ITI017,  ITI026,  ITN001, 
ITN003, ITN004, ITN006, ITN007, ITN009, ITR051, ITR061): for these UoMs, Italy instead 
reported on the timetable for implementation (see below on the following page)80.  

Of the 9 055 measures for which priority is indicated: 807 measures are classified as critical 
(9%  of  the  total);  5  249  measures  are  classified  as  very  high  priority  (85%);  2  455  as  high 

priority  (27  %);  434  measures  as  moderate  priority  (4  %)  and  110  as  low  priority  (1  %). 
Among the measure aspects, over half of the critical priority measures are for prevention (10 % 
of  prevention  measures,  the  highest  share  amongst  the  four  aspects,  are  listed  as  of  critical 

priority).  Two-thirds  of  prevention  measures  and  three-quarters  of  recovery  and  review 

77   Italy subsequently stated that this will be clear when measures will be definitively designed and interventions 

realized. 

78   Eastern Alps (ITA), FRMP's Annex 2, table 1. Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023+ITR131), Annex "misure strutturali e 

non strutturali", par. 6. Central Apennines (ITE), FRMP, p.162. geographic coverage: 6 (b). 

79   Italy noted that reporting of geographic coverage was not mandatory. 
80   Italy subsequently recalled that the reporting sheets provide for either priority or timetable. 

45 

 
 
                                                 
measures are listed as being of very high priority. Almost one-third of protection measures are 
listed as being of high priority (for further details see Tables A7 and A8 in Annex A)81.  

When looking at the FRMPs assessed:  

  Sardinia  (ITR201)  presents  12  critical  measures  out  of  62  total  (19  %),  23  very  high 
priority  measures  (37  %)  and  27  high  priority  measures  (44  %),  no  moderate  or  low 
priorities were indicated.  

  For the Sangro (ITI023), 34 measures out of 45 measures (76 %) are classified as very 

high priority and the remaining 11 as high priority;  

 

for  the  Abruzzo  regional  UoM  (ITR131),  there  is  one  critical  measure  (2  %),  15  very 

high  priority  measures  (25  %),  43  high  priority  measures  (72  %),  and  one  moderate 
priority measure.  

  For Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), a total of 508 measures are indicated, of which 41 are 
critical (8 %), 382 very high priority (75 %), 81 high priority (16 %), 3 moderate (0.6 %) 

and one low priority (0.2 %).  

  For  the  Isonzo  (ITN004,  part  of  ITA,  the  Eastern  Alps  RBD),  no  information  was 

reported on the priorities of its measures.  

The ITA and ITE FRMPs both cover several UoMs – including the Isonzo (ITN004) for ITA 
and the Sangro (ITI023) and Abruzzo (ITR131) for ITE – and Italy’s reporting to WISE is at 
the UoM level, not the RBD level of these FRMPs82.  

The  FRMPs  for  Abruzzo/Sangro  (ITI023  and  ITR131),  Central  Apennines  (ITE)  and 

Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020)  indicate  that  the  prioritisation  of  measures  was  carried  out 
following an approach indicated by ISPRA, the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection 

and Research (in 2014).  This  method uses a multicriteria approach. This  method is  based on 
the four themes of the objectives – reduction of social risks (including those for human health), 

risks  to  economic  activities,  cultural  heritage  and  the  environment  –  and  then  the  individual 
objectives identified by the FRMP under each theme. For each objective, a value is given (for 

example,  reduction  of  risk  to  transport  infrastructure  has  different  scores  for  railroads  and 
national,  regional  and  local  roads).  The  values  for  each  objective  are  summed  to  give  the 
overall score for each measure83.  

81   Reporting sheets. 
82   Reporting sheets. 
83   FRMPs  for  Abruzzo/Sangro  (ITI023+ITR131),  p.28;  Central  Apennines  (ITE),  p.  163;  Puglia/Ofanto 
(ITR161I020), p. 91. ISPRA's approach  was indicated in the  “Note sulla compilazione  del Database  Access 
conforme agli schema per il reporting della Dir. 2007/60/CE art. 7: Piani di Gestione del Rischio Alluvioni”. 

46 

 
 
                                                 
For  the  Eastern  Alps  (ITA),  the  FRMP  refers  to  a  different  approach,  also  based  on  a 
multicriteria approach, but one prepared by the Austrian Environment Ministry, composed by 

four  criteria,  including  short-term  economic  analysis.  This  method  was  tailored  to  the  local 
conditions  and  needs  in  the  UoM/RBD  and  was  adopted  by  Regional  and  Provincial 
authorities84.  

In the FRMP for Sardinia (ITR201), no information was found regarding the approach used for 
prioritisation of the measures85, 86. 

Italy  reported  information  on  the  timetable  for  those  measures  where  the  priority  was  not 

reported: consequently, only 1 009 measures (10 % of the 10 064 measures reported) across 10 
of  the  47  UoMs:  ITI017,  ITI026,  ITN001,  ITN003,  ITN004,  ITN006,  ITN007,  ITN009, 

ITR051, ITR061.  For these 10 UoMs, 232 measures (23 % of the 1 009 measures) are to be 
implemented in 2016-18; 573 measures (57 %) in the period from 2016-21; and 165 measures 

(16  %)  in  the  period  2019-21.  Consequently,  96  %  of  the  measures  listed  are  to  be 
implemented  in  the  current  FRMP  cycle.  The  remaining  39  measures  (4  %  of  the  1  009 
measures)  are  to  be  implemented  in  the  period  2022-27,  i.e.  in  the  next  FRMP  cycle  (for 

further  details  see  Tables  A9  and  A10  in  Annex  A).  Among  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  a 
timetable is reported only for the Isonzo UoM (ITN004). In this UoM the vast majority of the 

measure (53 of the total 55 measures) will be implemented in the current FRMP cycle (2016-
21) and only two measures in the next cycle87. 

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

Italy  provided  information  about  the  authorities  responsible  for  the  measures  in  its  reporting 

sheets.  In most cases,  either the level of responsible authority or the name of the responsible 
authority was reported. On this basis, the level of responsible authority was compiled into six 

major categories (see tables A11 and A12 in Annex A):  

  operators (mainly bodies managing transport and water infrastructure) are responsible for 

615 measures (6 % of the total of 10 064 measures);  

  municipalities for 1 689 measures (17 % of the total);  

  provincial authorities for 333 measures (3 % of the total);  

84   FRMP for the Eastern Alps (ITA), p. 92. 
85   FRMP for Sardinia (ITR201). 
86   Italy  subsequently  informed  that  in  Sardinia,  the  prioritisation  of  measures  has  been  defined  based  on  the 
criterion  that  human  life  and  health  must  be  first  preserved,  and  also  environment,  cultural  heritage  and 
economic activities. The priority of each measure has been evaluated depending on how it could contribute to 
the achievement of these objectives. 

87   Reporting sheets. 

47 

 
 
                                                 
 

regional authorities for 6 511 measures (65 %);  

  national authorities for 85 measures (0.8 %);  

  civil protection authorities for 27 measures (0.3 %); and  
  other authorities for 804 measures (8 %)88.  

For the five UoMs assessed, in Sardinia (ITR201) only the regional authorities are identified as 
responsible authorities: they implement all 62 measures reported.  

  For  the  Isonzo  (ITN004)  in  ITA,  the  majority  of  the  measures  are  implemented  by 
regional  authorities  (82  %  of  the  total  55  measures),  eight  measures  by  national  level 
authorities (15 %), one measures by a municipality (2 %), and one by another authority 

(2 %).  

  For Sangro (ITI023), of the 45 measures reported, one is implemented by a municipality 

(2 %), 41 by regional authorities (91%) and three by other authorities (7 %) 

  For  Abruzzo  (ITR131,  reported  separately  from  the  Sangro  UoM),  regional  authorities 
will  implement  the  lion’s  share  of  measures  –  163  out  of  167  (98  %)  measures,  a 

municipality  will  be  responsible  for  one  measure  (less  than  1%)  and  other  entities  for 
three measures (2 %).  

  For  Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020),  where  508  measures  are  reported:  11  measures  are 
under the responsibility of operators (2 %), 281 of municipalities (55 %), 179 of regional 

authorities (35 %), three of provincial authorities (1 %) and 34 by others (7 %).  

As noted previously, the ITA and ITE FRMPs both cover several UoMs – including the Isonzo 
(ITN004) for ITA and the Sangro (ITI023) and Abruzzo (ITR131) for ITE – and measures for 
these RBDs are reported at UoM level89. 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

In its reporting sheets, Italy indicated that: 

  6 489 of the 10 064 measures have not started (64 %),  

  2 283 are in the phase of ongoing construction (23 %),  

  918 are in ongoing progress (9 %), and  

  379 are completed (4 %).  

Just over 80 % of the prevention measures (2 852 out of 3 502) have not been started. Just over 

60  %  of  the  protection  measures  (2  807  out  of  4  566  measures)  are  not  started,  while  15  % 

88   Reporting sheets. 
89   Reporting sheets. 

48 

 
 
                                                 
(687  measures)  are  in  the  stage  of  ongoing  construction  and  17%  (794  measures)  are  in 
ongoing progress.  In contrast, less than half of the preparedness measures (654 out of 1 572, 

42%),  and  a  similar  share  of  recovery  and  review  measures  (169  out  of  408,  41  %)  are  not 
started.  For  preparedness  measures,  846  out  of  1  572  (54  %)  are  reported  in  ongoing 
construction90  and  a  further  46  (3  %)  are  in  ongoing  progress.  For  recovery  and  review 
measures,  189  out  of  408  (46  %)  are  in  ongoing  construction  and  20  (5  %)  are  in  ongoing 
progress (see Tables A13 and A14 in Annex A)91.  

Among the FRMPs assessed:  

 

for  the  Isonzo  (ITN004,  part  of  the  ITA  RBD),  26  out  of  55  measures  (47%)  are  not 
started, nine (16 %) are in ongoing construction and 20 (36 %) are in ongoing progress, 

with none completed.  

  For  the  Abruzzo  (ITR131),  29  out  of  167  measures  have  not  started  (17  %),  59  are  in 
construction  ongoing  (35  %)  and  78  are  in  ongoing  progress  (47  %),  with  only  one 
measure (1 %) completed.  

  For  the  Sangro  (ITI023),  14  measures  are  not  started  (31%),  26  are  in  ongoing 

construction (58 %), four are ongoing progress (9 %) and one is completed (2 %).  

  For the Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), 345 measures are not started (68 % of the 508 total 
measures), 89 are in ongoing construction (18 %) and 74 are in ongoing progress (15 %).  

  For  the  Sardinia  UoM  (ITR201)  the  majority  (48  %)  of  the  measures  are  ongoing 
construction or progress (29 and one of the total 62 measures in the UoM respectively), 
17 measures (27 %) have not started and 15 measures (24 %) are reported as completed.  

As noted previously, the ITA and ITE FRMPs both cover several UoMs – including the Isonzo 

(ITN004)  for  ITA  and  the  Sangro  (ITI023)  and  Abruzzo  (ITR131)  for  ITE  –  and  are  not 
reported separately92. 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

Member States have been asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure 

has  been  implemented.  Italy  has  reported  this  information  for  2  576  measures,  in  all  cases 
referring to the Water Framework Directive93.  

90   The category of ‘ongoing construction’ is intended for construction and building works, which are generally 
not  preparedness  measures.  For  example,  measures  under  type  M21  –  Prevention,  Avoidance,  Measure  to 
prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas, such as land use planning policies or 
regulation – are among those whose progress is reported as ongoing construction. This appears to be a case of 
misreporting, and these measures likely should have been indicated as ongoing progress.   

91   Reporting sheets. 
92   Reporting sheets. 

49 

 
 
                                                 
WFD:  Three  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  refer  to  coordination  with  the  RBMPs,  but  do  not 
identify  measures  taken  under  the  RBMPs:  this  is  the  case  for  ITA  (Eastern  Alps),  for 
Puglia/Ofanto and for Abruzzo/Sangro94. In contrast, no information was found in the FRMPs 
for Sardinia (ITR201) or the Central Apennines (ITE)95.  

In Italy’s reporting sheets, a total of 2 576 measures across all UoMs (26 %) cite the WFD. Of 

these, 271 measures (3 %) refer to specific key types of measures under the WFD, while the 
remaining  2 305 cite the WFD but  not  a key type of  measure. The majority of the measures 

that  cite  the  WFD  are  prevention  measures  (see  tables  A15  and  A16  in  Annex  A).  In  the 
FRMPs  assessed,  references  to  the  WFD  are  made  for  185  measures  in  Puglia/Ofanto 

(ITR161I020),  26  measures  in  Sardinia  (ITR201),  24  measures  in  Abruzzo  (ITR131),  12 
measures in Isonzo (ITN004) and nine measures in Sangro (ITI023)96. 

EIA Directive: The FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto states that individual measures will undergo an 

EIA. The FRMPs for the Central Apennines (ITE) and for the Abruzzo and Sangro mentions 
the EIA Directive without indicating specific actions to be taken under it. The FRMP for the 
Eastern  Alps  (ITA)  does  not  include  a  reference  to  the  EIA  Directive,  but  mentions  EIA 

procedures for several projects prior to the plan itself. No information was found in the FRMP 
for Sardinia (ITR201)97. 

SEA Directive: All five FRMPs assessed have undergone an SEA, as noted also in section 7. 

The FRMPs, however, contain few other references to the SEA Directive. The FRMPs for the 
Central Apennines (ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto cite the SEA Directive, mainly indicating that the 

FRMP itself was subject to an SEA. The Directive is included in the list of references for the 
FRMP of the Eastern Alps (ITE), but further information was not found in the text. The other 
three FRMPs assessed did not contain a reference to the Directive98. 

Seveso  Directive:  The  FRMPs  for  ITA  (Eastern  Alps)  and  for  the  Abruzzo/Sangro  both 
include  the  protection  of  Seveso  facilities  among  their  sub-objectives.  The  FRMP  for  ITE 

(Central  Apennines)  mentions  the  Seveso  Directive  and  includes  the  protection  of  Seveso 
facilities among the context indicators for the monitoring of implementation. No reference to 

93   Italy subsequently informed that this reference indicates win-win measures for the FD and the WFD. 
94   FRMPs  for  ITA  (Eastern  Alps)  (p.  75,  section  3.3);  for  Puglia/Ofanto  (p.  79,  section  5.3.5);  and  for 

Abruzzo/Sangro (p. 4). 

95   Italy  subsequently  noted  that  all  FRMPs  have  explicit  links  to  the  WFD  in  relation  to  shared  data 
(hydrographic  network,  protected  areas,  potential  sources  of  pollution  layers).  Measures  to  improve 
knowledge,  remove  receptors  from  flood  prone  area  and  regulate  land  use  provide  examples  of  win-win 
measures. 

96   Reporting sheets. 
97   FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto, p. 79, section 5.3.5. FRMPs for the Central Apennines (ITE) and for the Abruzzo 

and Sangro, p. 4.  

98   FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto, p. 79, section 5.3.5. 

50 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
the  Seveso  Directive  was  found  in  the  FRMPs  for  Sardinia  (ITR201)  or  Puglia/Ofanto 
(including in their annexes on measures)99. 

Civil protection mechanism: While all five FRMPs assessed refer to Italy’s Civil Protection 

bodies, none contains a reference to the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. 

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

With regard to spatial planning/land use measures, measures are included in all five FRMPs 
assessed. For example:  

  For the Eastern Alps (ITA), the list of measures includes among others nine measures to 
incorporate  new  flood  risk  scenarios  in  urban  plans  in  sub-basins  (e.g.  in  the 
interregional catchment of the Lemene River).  

  For Sardinia (ITR201), the list of non-structural measures includes a measure to update 

rules for territorial governance and land use to address flood risks100.  

  For  Abruzzo/Sangro  (ITI023  and  ITR131),  the  programme  of  measures  includes 
measures  to  establish  rules  on  land  use  and  initiatives  to  promote  the  relocation  of 
activities in critical areas.  

  The FRMP for the Central Apennines (ITE) also contains measures for relocation from 

critical areas and guidelines to reduce vulnerability via urban planning rules.  

  The FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020)  also  contains  a measure  for  delocalisation, 

as well as another for restrictions of activities in river bodies101, 102. 

None of the five FRMPs assessed refer to  changes in the framework for land use and spatial 

planning  since  2000,  though  a  couple  FRMPs  –  notably  the  plan  for  ITA,  Eastern  Alps  – 
underline the role that urban expansion has played in aggravating flood risks. 

99   FRMPs  for  ITA  (Eastern  Alps),  p.  21,  FRMP  for  the  Abruzzo/Sangro,  p.  15,  FRMP  for  ITE  (Central 

Apennines), p. 16 and p. 167. 

100  Italy subsequently noted that the Sardinian FRMP’s maps have been elaborated on the basis of current spatial 
information, specifically, the regional spatial data infrastructure (SITR-IDT) database containing the updated 
data of land use layers. Some of the non-structural measures identify further updates to be made, based on the 
possible updates of land use and improvements of digital terrain models. 

101  The  Eastern  Alps (ITA), “Allegato IV (scheda interventi)”, lines:14, 99, 244, 278, 333, 444, 500, 527, 528. 
Sardinia  (ITR201),  “Re02  -  Relazione  sulle  misure  non  strutturali  -  aggiornamento  marzo  2016”,  p.9. 
Abruzzo/Sangro  (ITI023+ITR131),  “Programma  delle  misure”,  P.33.  Central  Apennines  (ITE),  “Allegato: 
Priorizzazione delle misure”, p.3,4,5. Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), “3.0.1 Sintesi delle misure a scala vasta”, 
p.1 

102  Italy subsequently noted that in the Puglia/Ofanto FRMP, an analysis evaluated the effects on flooding due to 
land use changes in a pilot basin: these produce a 5 % increment of the flow coefficient and thus they affect 
the flood hazard scenarios. 

51 

 
 
                                                 
Natural  water  retention  measures  (NWRMs)  have  been  planned  in  all  of  the  five  FRMPs 
assessed. In their main reports, four of the five FRMPs assessed mention the role of NWRMs 

among their measures (the exception being the FRMP for Sardinia, ITR201). Specific NWRM 
measures are listed for all five FRMPs assessed: 

 

In  its  list  of  measures,  the  FRMP  for  the  Eastern  Alps  (ITA),  for  example,  includes 

measures for the restoration of areas of natural  water expansion  –which corresponds to 
NWRM  measure  type  N03103;  and  for  the  natural  restoration  of  areas  without  a 
description of the specific work.  

  The  list  of  measures  for  the  Central  Apennines  (ITE)  and  the  Abruzzo/Sangro  (ITI023 
and ITR131) includes measures to strengthen the natural functions of river areas in order 

to  improve the management of river flows, though specific details  are  not  provided (in 
both cases, designated as measure type M31104).  

  The  list  of  measures  for  Abruzzo/Sangro  includes  also  measures  to  restore  natural 
conditions  along  river  courses  but  without  providing  specific  details.  These  measures 
may correspond to NWRM measure types N05105 or N08106.  

  For Sardinia (ITR201), the list of measures includes an action for the renaturalisation of 

a river, again related to NWRM measure types N05 or N08107. 

Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. Three of the five FRMPs assessed 
– those for the Eastern Alps (ITA), Central Apennines (ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) 

– include measures for nature conservation. The Eastern Alps (ITA) FRMP includes measures 
for the development  of  protocols  for environmental protection. The Central  Apennines (ITE) 

FRMP provides measure protection measures of type M21 for the protection of natural features 
of  the  hydrographic  network.  The  Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020)  FRMP  includes  measures  for 

the  protection  of  vegetation  and  analysis  of  the  impact  of  structural  measures  on  the 
environment.  

As  noted  above,  several  NWRMs  refer  to  the  improvement  of  natural  conditions108.  No 
information  was  found  in  the  FRMPs  of  Abruzzo/Sangro  (ITI023  and  ITR131)  and  Sardinia 

(ITR201) concerning nature conservation measures. 

103  N03 Floodplain restoration and management. 
104  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. 

105  N05 Stream bed re-naturalisation. 
106  N08 Riverbed material renaturalisation. 
107  FRMPs  for  the  Eastern  Alps  (ITA),  p.105.  Central  Apennines  (ITE),  p.153.  Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020), 

p.63,67,73. FRMPs for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023+ITR131) and Sardinia (ITR201) were also reviewed. 

52 

 
 
                                                 
No  specific  references  were  found  in  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  that  they  shall  take  into 
consideration navigation and port infrastructure. However, it can be noted that one measure 

for  ITA  (Eastern  Alps)  refers  to  the  completion  of  an  inland  canal  (the  Idrovia  Padova-
Venezia)  that  can  act  as  a  floodway  for  the  Brenta  River;  the  FRMP  for  Puglia  and  Ofanto 
(ITR161I020) mentions port infrastructure among the factors considered in the plan109 110.  

No  reference  has  been  found  in  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  to  dredging  to  increase  the  river 
channel capacity and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation purposes111. Even though 
no  measures  specifically  refer  to  dredging,  some  measures  refer  to  river  “maintenance”  and 
four of the five FRMPs  assessed refer to  actions to  improve the capacity of rivers to  convey 

water  for  flood  alleviation  purposes.  The  list  of  measures  for  ITA  (Eastern  Alps)  includes 
several measures to improve the laminar flow of rivers (for example for the Brenta River in the 

Province of Trento) as well as for the creation of floodway channels (for example, a measure to 
build a floodway channel for the Cormor River in the Province of Udine). The list of measures 

for Sardinia’s FRMP (ITR201) includes the implementation of “Piani di laminazione”, plans to 
increase  river  channel  water  laminar  flow,  and  the  list  of  measures  for  Abruzzo/Sangro 

(ITR131  and  ITI023)  includes programmes for this. The FRMP for  ITE (Central  Apennines) 
includes a measure for structural interventions to improve laminar flow112. 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The 

role  of 

insurance  policies  with 

regard 

to 

the 

recovery 

from 

flooding, 

preparedness/resilience  to  flood  or  other  issues  is  discussed  only  in  one  of  the  FRMPs 
assessed. The FRMP for Eastern Alps (ITA) includes in its list of measures several measures 

related  to  insurance,  among  which  a  study  on  insurance  policies  for  the  Isonzo  Basin, 

108  FRMPs  for  the  Eastern  Alps  (ITA),  p.105.  Central  Apennines  (ITE),  p.153.  Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020), 

p.63,67,73. FRMPs for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023+ITR131) and Sardinia (ITR201) were also reviewed. 

109  FRMPs  for  Sardinia  (ITR201),  Eastern  Alps  (ITA),  Abruzzo/Sangro  (ITI023+ITR131),  Central  Apennines 

(ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020). 

110  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  in  many  RBDs  and  UoMs  –  including  the  Central  Apennines  (ITE), 
Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020)  and  Sardinia  (ITR201)  –  due  to  the  reduced  size  of  rivers,  few  are  used  for 
navigation. Italy also clarified that the FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto includes ports in  the  strategic infrastructure 
addressed for risk reduction. Within the analysis of the port infrastructure, actions for the reduction of coastal 
erosion are considered as a reduction factor of the risk of the flood from the sea. 

111  Italy  subsequently  informed  that  water  course  dredging  is  part  of  ordinary  maintenance  actions.  For  the 
Central  Apennines  RBD (ITE), dredging to  increase the river channel capacity is  not a  measure that can be 
considered  appropriate  with  the  District’s  network  of  rivers,  which  are  mostly  torrential.  Excluding  modest 
advantages  near  the  location  of  dredging,  this  measure  would  only  shift  the  problem  downstream.  Sardinia 
district  authority  has  developed  an  Act  for  dredging,  the  "Directive  for  riverbeds  maintenance  and  for 
sediments managements". In the FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), maintenance activities on the rivers 
to improve flow conditions were considered within prevention measures. 

112  FRMPs for Sardinia (ITR201), Eastern Alps (ITA), Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023+131), Central Apennines  (ITE) 

and Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020). 

53 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
ITN004113. No further information concerning the role of insurance policies (e.g. what types of 
insurance is available in flood risk areas) has been found in the FRMPs assessed. 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

All but one of the FRMPs assessed provide information on the indicators to be used to monitor 

the progress of implementation of the planned measures.  

  Within the Eastern Alps (ITA) FRMP, the separate, annexed FRMP for the Autonomous 
Province of Bolzano/Bozen identifies an indicator to monitor the implementation of each 

measure,  with  numerical  values  from  0  (not  started)  to  1  (completed)  for  the  state  of 
progress.  

  The  main  FRMP  for  ITA  as  well  as  the  FRMP  for  Abruzzo/Sangro  (ITI023+ITR131) 
identified an indicator for each measure, based on the stages of completion listed in the 
European Commission’s reporting guidance.  

  The FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) instead identifies a set of indicators for the 
FRMP as a whole,  grouped by measure aspect.  For each,  a baseline value is  indicated. 

For  example,  for  protection,  one  of  the  11  indicators  calls  for  a  reduction  in  the  area 
exposed to flood risk and gives the current, baseline value for the indicator.  

  The FRMP for ITE (Central Apennines) also states that its indicators are for the plan as a 
whole.  The  FRMP  refers  to  three  types  of  monitoring  indicators:  context;  process,  the 

progress  of  implementation  of  the  plan;  and  sustainability  indicators  that  present  the 
effects of measures. The three are linked together and also linked to the objectives of the 

FRMP: for example, one of the overall objectives is to reduce impacts on human health; 
the process indicators refer to the number of measures financed, underway or completed 

(these  are  cross-cutting  for  all  objectives);  one  of  the  two  context  indicators  for  this 
objective  is  the  current  population  exposed  to  flood  risks  for  each  area;  and  related 

sustainability indicator is the change in the population exposed to flood risks.  

  No information was found in the FRMP for Sardinia (ITR201). 

The FRMPs provide little information, however, on how monitoring will be carried out114. The 
FRMP  for  the  Eastern  Alps  (ITA)  notes  that  actions  financed  by  the  national  Ministry  of 
Environment, Land and Sea will be monitored at national level, also via ISPRA. This FRMP 

113  FRMPs  for  Eastern  Alps  (ITA),  p.28.  The  FRMPs  for  the  Abruzzo/Sangro  (ITI023+ITR131),  Central 

Apennines (ITE), Sardinia (ITR201), Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020). 

114  Italy subsequently informed that actions financed by  the Regional  Administrations  will  be  monitored by the 
regional district authority, while the actions financed by the national Environment Ministry will be monitored 
at national level through the web platform ReNDiS of ISPRA. The monitoring of measure implementation will 
be carried out in compliance to Annex A of the Floods Directive. 

54 

 
 
                                                 
notes  that  the  ReNDiS  platform115,  hosted  by  ISPRA116,  will  play  an  important  role  in 
monitoring  these  measures;  other  FRMPs  assessed,  such  as  the  FRMP  for  Puglia/Ofanto 

(ITR161I020), also refer to the use of this platform, as do all of Italy’s Reporting summaries. 
The  FRMP  for  the  Central  Apennines  (ITE)  states  that  the  RBD  authority  (the  Tiber  River 

Authority, acting as provisional authority for the whole RBD) will prepare yearly monitoring 
reports,  drawing  on  information  provided  by  regional  bodies.  The  FRMP  for  Puglia/Ofanto 

(ITR161I020) states that the authorities responsible for each measure will transmit information 
to the regional basin authority117. 

Information concerning the baseline values against which progress  will be measured was not 

found in all FRMPs assessed. As noted previously specific baseline values are mentioned only 
in  the  FRMP  for  Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020),  where  a  baseline  value  is  indicated  for  all 

indicators that will be used. 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  development  of  the  FRMPs  has  been  coordinated  with  the 
development of the second RBMPs of the WFD. 

Table 8 

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

ITA 

ITE 

ITR161I
020 

ITR201 

ITI023, 
ITR131 

Integration of FRMP and RBMP into a single 
plan 

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP  

Coordination between authorities responsible 
for developing FRMP and RBMP  

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

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

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

The RBMP PoMs include win-win measures 
in terms of achieving the objectives of the 
WFD and Floods Directive, drought 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

* 

✔ 

* 

✔ 

✔ 

* 

* 

115  http://www.rendis.isprambiente.it/rendisweb/ 
116  http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/en/ISPRA/the-institute 
117   FRMP  for  the  Autonomous  Province  of  Bolzano/Bozen,  Annex  III  to  the  FRMP  for  ITA,  p.43. 
Abruzzo/Sangro  (ITI023+ITR131)  FRMP,  p.37.  Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020),  p.105.  FRMP  for  Sardinia 
(ITR201). FRMP for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023+ITR131), pp. 37-8. FRMP for ITE, pp. 165-7. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ITA 

ITE 

ITR161I
020 

ITR201 

ITI023, 
ITR131 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔** 

✔ 

* 

management and NWRMs a 

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

Natural water retention and green 
infrastructure measures have been included  

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

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

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

Notes: 
a Based on reporting for the WFD; 
* Reporting for the WFD covers RBDs and not UoMs; 
** Information found in the FRMP. 

The  five  FRMPs  assessed  provide  different  levels  of  information  regarding  the  coordination 
with the second RBMPs118.  

The  Eastern  Alps  (ITA)  FRMP  identifies  measures  that  provide  synergies  with  the  RBMP, 
those that are ‘win-win’ for both plans and those that can lead to possible conflicts between the 

two plans. Win-win measures include non-structural measures such as alert systems as well as 
renaturalisation  measures.  Possible  conflicts  are  identified,  among  others,  for  structural 

measures. It should be noted that the Authority that prepared the ITA FRMP also prepared the 
ITA RBMP.  

118  Eastern  Alps  (ITA)  FRMP,  p.  76  and  in  the  list  of  measures,  Annex  IV;  Central  Apennines  (ITE)  FRMP, 
section 10 of the main report and Annex 1.1; Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) FRMP, pp. 19, 22, 67 and Annexes 
3.0.1 and subsequent. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
For  the  Central  Apennines  (ITE),  the  FRMP  notes  that  several  types  of  measures  will 
contribute to WFD objectives, including those providing room for the river. The prioritisation 

of measures includes their effect on the status of water bodies. The FRMP also refers to Art. 4 
of the WFD, without providing detail on how coordination will be carried out. The FRMP also 

notes  that  coordination  between  WFD  and  the  Floods  Directive  is  probably  easier  in  other 
Member States where UoMs and authorities match.  

For  Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020),  the  FRMP  cites  WFD  objectives  and  states  that  these  are 

integrated into the FRMP’s objectives.  This  plan also  indicates that certain  FRMP measures, 
including  for  renaturalisation  of  river  courses,  will  contribute  to  the  good  status  objectives 

under  the  WFD.  Moreover,  the  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  measures  will  consider 
WFD  objectives.  For  structural  measures,  the  FRMP  states  that  the  EIA  process  and  ex-ante 
analysis  based  on  a  national  methodology  prepared  by  ISPRA  will  be  used119.  The  list  of 
measures identifies measures that contribute to WFD objectives.  

For  Sardinia  (ITR201),  the  FRMP  refers  to  the  RBMP  but  does  not  describe  coordination 
methods, though its objectives include the mitigation of negative impacts on ecological status. 

Although not explained in the FRMP, the same authority prepares the FRMPs and RBMPs in 
Sardinia. The reporting sheet for Sardinia states that coordination between FRMP and RBMP 
objectives was sought in the identification of FRMP measures and also via the NWRMs120.  

While the FRMP for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131) does not mention WFD objectives 
or other elements of coordination with that Directive, the reporting sheets for these UoMs state 

that coordination included sharing of the knowledge base as well as the definition of measures. 

As  noted  previously,  in  Italy’s  reporting  sheets,  a  total  of  2  576  FRMP  measures  make 
references  to  the  WFD.  These  are  found  in  all  of  Italy’s  UoMs  and  cover  flood  risk 

management measure aspects (prevention, preparedness, protection and recovery and review). 
Many but not all of these measures refer to WFD Key Types of Measures (KTMs), including 

KTM  5,  6,  14,  21,  23  and  26  (due  to  the  high  number  of  measures  and  different  reporting 
styles, it is not possible to provide an overview of the number for each KTM)121. 

119  IDRAIM,  Sistema  di  valutazione  idromorfologica,  analisi  e  monitoraggio  dei  corsi  d’acqua  -  System  for 

hydromorphological evaluation, analysis and monitoring of water bodies 

120  Italy subsequently informed that the Environmental Report for the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the 
Sardinia  FRMP  contains  an  external  coherence  analysis  that  compares  the  objectives  of  the  FRMP  and  the 
RBMP. See: 
http://www.regione.sardegna.it/j/v/2420?s=1&v=9&c=14012&na=1&n=10&tb=14006&esp=1  

121 Reporting sheets. 

57 

 
 
                                                 
 
4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  Four  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  have  prioritised  their  measures  using  multicriteria 
analysis  (three  using  an  Italian  national  system  and  the  fourth  using  a  system  adopted 
from Austria and adapted).  

  All five FRMPs assessed include measures to address land use and spatial planning, and 
all  five  include  NWRMs  in  their  measures.  Three  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  include 

measures related to nature protection.  

  Four  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  identify  indicators  to  monitor  implementation,  two 
identifying  indicators  for  measures  and  two  for  the  FRMP  as  a  whole.  One  FRMP 

assessed  –  for  Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020)  –  identifies  a  baseline  value  for  each 
indicator. 

The following area for further development was identified:  

  Although four of the five FRMPs assessed identify monitoring indicators, the FRMPs do 
not  provide  a  detailed  description  of  how  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  measures 

will  be  carried  out,  still,  the  plans  as  well  as  Italy’s  reporting  sheets  refer  to  a  national 
database,  ReNDiS,  used  to  track  implementation  of  measures  financed  by  the  national 

Ministry of Environment. 

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

58 

 
 
 
 
5. Consideration of climate change 

According to  Italy’s reporting sheets,  climate change will be addressed in the updates of the 

FRMPs  (i.e.  in  the  next  cycle)  for  all  UoMs,  taking  into  account  Italy’s  Climate  Change 
Adaptation Strategy.  

All  of  Italy’s  reporting  sheets  refer  to  a  preliminary  national  document  –  “Elementi  per  una 

Strategia  Nazionale  di  Adattamento  ai  cambiamenti  climatici”  (Elements  for  a  National 
Climate Change Strategy) – approved in October 2014 by Italy’s Conference of Regions and 

Autonomous  Provinces  –  and  to  the  “Strategia  Nazionale  di  Adattamento  ai  Cambiamenti 
Climatici” (National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, CCAS), approved in June 2015 by 

an internal decree of the Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea. The National Strategy refers 
to increased risk of flooding, including pluvial flash floods. 

While  all  of  the  reporting  sheets  referred  to  the  CCAS,  this  was  not  the  case  for  the  five 
FRMPs  assessed.  In  the  FRMPs  for  Sardinia  (ITR201)  and  the  Eastern  Alps  (ITA)  there  are 

references to the CCAS, but no reference was found in the plans for Abruzzo/Sangro (ITR131 
and ITI023), Central Apennines (ITE) and Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020)122.  

All of Italy’s reporting sheets note that the National CCAS refers to an increase in flood events 

in the Mediterranean Sea area, including sea flooding in coastal areas as well as an increase in 
the frequency and intensity of extreme meteorological events.  

The reporting sheet and the FRMP for one of the five FRMPs assessed, the Puglia and Ofanto 
UoM (ITR16I010), refers to a pilot study that was carried out for a sub-catchment, the Picone 

river basin. It found that climate change appeared to have less important impact in this basin 
than  other  factors,  hydraulic  and  hydrological  factors,  such  as  changes  in  topography  (e.g. 
changes in land use)123.  

The  five  FRMPs  assessed,  however,  in  general  do  not  contain  specific  sections  or  extensive 
information on climate change. In the FRMP for the Central Apennines (ITE), there is a brief 

note on potential changes in the occurrence of extreme events: the FRMP makes reference to 
“bombe  d’acqua”  (literally,  “water  bombs”),  an  intense  phenomenon  of  high-intensity 

122  Italy  subsequently  noted  that  for  Sardinia’s  FRMP,  an  analysis  of  the  National  Climate  Change  Adaptation 
Strategy was carried out in the Environmental Report of the Strategic Environmental Assessment. This report 
also makes a comparison of the objectives of FRMP with those of National Strategy: 
http://www.regione.sardegna.it/j/v/2420?s=1&v=9&c=14012&na=1&n=10&tb=14006&esp=1 ) 

123  FRMP ITR16I010, p. 65. 

59 

 
 
                                                 
 
precipitation.  No  reference  to  a  shift  in  the  occurrence  of  extreme  events  and  changes  in 
numerical recurrence times was found in the other four FRMPs assessed124.  

Concerning  changes  in  the  sources  of  flooding,  there  is  only  one  reference  in  the  reporting 

sheets: for ITN002 (Arno River), there is a brief reference to increased flash floods and pluvial 
flooding125.  In the five FRMPs assessed, however,  no reference was found  to  changes in  the 
main sources of flooding due to climate change scenarios. 

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change 

Even though the FRMPs assessed include structural and non-structural measures, measures to 
address land use, spatial planning and pollution risk, little information was found if and how 

climate change has been considered in the planning of these measures.  

A review of the five FRMPs assessed found few measures focused on climate change either. 
One example is seen in the FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), which includes a measure 

to evaluate the effects of climate changes on floods. The result of that study will be used in the 
second cycle FRMP for this UoM.  

5.2  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The  five  FRMPs  assessed  contain  relatively  limited  information  on  climate  change 
impacts (and no reference to the national climate change adaptation strategy), and based 
on the UoM reporting sheets, this appears to be the case for most of Italy’s FRMPs. The 

objectives of the FRMPs assessed do not refer to addressing climate change impacts, and 
few measures addressing climate change impacts were identified126. 

124  FRMPs  assessed.  Specifically:  Central  Apennines  (ITE),  5,  “Cambiamento  climatico”  page  61;  FRMP 

Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), 5, p. 65. 

125  Italy subsequently informed that for some UoMs of the Northern Apennines RBD (ITC), a methodology for 
defining  the  predisposition  for  the  occurrence  of  intense  and  concentrated  phenomena  (flash  floods)  due  to 
climate change has been developed. For the Arno UoM (ITN002), the methodology has been applied with the 
consequent elaboration of the flash flood hazard maps and the identification of specific prevention measures. 
Following the approval of the FRMPs, the methodology has been applied in other UoMs in ITC and it will be 
applied throughout the District in the second FRMP cycle.  

In  all  cases,  the  hydro-pluviometric  data  used  in  the  first  cycle  for  the  preparation  of  the  FHRMs  will  be 
updated and therefore will take into account climate changes until 2012.  

126  Italy noted that it was not mandatory to address climate change in the first FRMPs. 

60 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
6. Cost-benefit analysis 

One  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  –  for  ITR161I020,  Puglia  Regional  basins  and  Ofanto 
Interregional  basin  –  discusses  costs  and  benefits127.  The  Plan  provides  an  overview  of  the 
costs of measures to be financed by the Puglia Region  and presents estimates of the costs of 

floods  for  three  sectors.  Flood  damages  are  calculated  in  terms  of  the  urban/residential, 
industrial and agricultural sectors. In addition, the reporting sheet for this UoM notes that the 

last major flooding events in Puglia had an impact on the tourism sector, though this sector is 
not specifically indicated among those considered in the CBA. The Plan states that recent and 

historical floods have high costs in terms of transport infrastructure and also in terms of lives 
(the reporting sheet notes impacts on human health and lives are difficult to quantify and are 

not included in the analysis.) The Plan indicates that damage costs will be further estimated in 
the implementation of the Plan itself.  In addition, the programme of measures for the FRMP 

mentions the use of CBA for the identification of economic activities at risk of flood damage 
that could be moved out of the flood risk zone to reduce such risks.  

Information  on  CBA  is  found  in  separate  volumes  annexed  to  another  FRMP  assessed,  for 
Sardinia (ITR201). A report on non-structural measures explains that the University of Cagliari 

carried out a study to identify possible non-structural measures: this study included a CBA, but 
the details are not provided. In addition, annexes outlining structural measures in sub-basins of 

Sardinia  note  that  an  assessment  of  costs  and  benefits  should  be  carried  out  for  individual 
projects  as  part  of  their  approval:  one  of  these  volumes  presents  and  applies  the  assessment 
method for different project scenarios128. 

For the Eastern Alps (ITA), one measure refers to the use of benefit-cost analysis for assessing 
the  transfer  of  archival  and  library  materials  in  Trento  at  risk  of  exposure  to  floods.  For  the 

other  two  FRMPs  assessed  (Central  Apennines,  ITE;  and  Abruzzo/Sangro,  ITR131  and 
ITI023), references to the analysis of costs and benefits were not found. 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Two of the five FRMPs assessed – Sardinia, ITR201 and Puglia and Ofanto, ITR161I020 
– refer to the use of CBA. On the basis of the information found, it appears that Italy has 

127  FRMP ITR161I020, section 5.5. 
128  Scenari di intervento strategico e coordinato: Coghinas – Relazione, section 11. Available at:  

http://www.regione.sardegna.it/j/v/2420?s=1&v=9&c=14012&na=1&n=10&tb=14006&esp=1  

61 

 
 
                                                 
 
not  exhausted  the  opportunities  for  cost-benefit  analyses  in  the  preparation  of  its 
FRMPs129.  

129  Italy noted subsequently that cost-benefit analysis is not mandatory under the Directive. 

62 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

A  comparison  of  the  2014  list  of  Competent  Authorities  submitted  by  Italy  and  the  2016 
reporting on the FRMPs, which included a spreadsheet listing Competent Authorities, showed 

some  changes  to  the  competent  authorities  in  relation  to  the  FRMPs.  In  the  2014  list 
("Competent authorities and Units of Management for IT"), 54 authorities were listed. Two of 

them  are  not  included  in  the  2016  list:  ITCANL001,  the  national  Ministry  of  Environment, 
Land  and  Sea  and  ITCANL002,  the  Department  of  Civil  Protection  under  the  national 

Presidency of the Council of Ministers (i.e. the Prime Minister's Office). With the removal of 
these  two  authorities,  all  the  Competent  Authorities  are  at  the  sub-national  level  (including 
regions, autonomous provinces and basin authorities)130 131 132.  

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the five FRMPs 
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 9 

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

ITA 

ITE 

ITR161I020 

ITR201 

ITI023 

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking  

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

130  Floods reporting: "Competent authorities and Units of Management for IT", 2014. 
131   Italy subsequently noted that a spreadsheet reported in 2016 shows only  Competent  Authorities involved at 
RBD  level.  ITCANL001  and  ITCANL002  are  at  national  level.  The  national  Competent  Authorities  –  i.e. 
ITCANL001, the national Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea and ITCANL002, the Department of Civil 
Protection  under  the  national  Presidency  of  the  Council  of  Ministers  (i.e.  the  Prime  Minister’s  Office)  – 
remain in place. However, RBDs, UoMs and CAs will be updated and uploaded to WISE within the next few 
months, once the European Commission has released the corresponding tools that are currently being updated. 
132  Italy subsequently informed that an important development since the publication of the FRMPs has been the 
reform  of  the  RBD  authorities  and  in  particular  the  establishment  of  permanent  authorities:  this  reform  was 
launched in December 2015 with Law 221/2015 (which under art. 51 has replaced the articles 63 and 64 of 
Legislative  Decree  152/2006  concerning  district  authorities  and  river  basin  districts).  In  October  2016,  a 
Ministerial Decree (D.M. 294 of 25.10.2016, Article. 4 paragraph 2) gave effect to the provisions of the 2015 
Law  and  clarified  that  the  District  Authorities  are  the  competent  authorities  pursuant  to  Art.  3  of  Directive 
2007/60/EC.  These  Authorities  are  fully  operational  today  since  the  publication  of  D.P.C.M.  ex  art.  63 
paragraph 4 of Legislative Decree 152/2006.  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ITA 

ITE 

ITR161I020 

ITR201 

ITI023 

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

✔ 

✔ 

Other* 
Notes: * Other - Notification in Italy's national gazette. 

✔ 

✔ 

The  FRMP  for  the  Eastern  Alps  (ITA)  provides  a  list  of  the  mechanisms  used  to  inform  the 
public and interested parties about the consultation process: this included a series of about 50 

meetings in both previous phases (including the FHRM phase) as well as for the FRMP itself. 
These  meetings  both  informed  the  public  about  the  consultation  process  and  also  provided 

forums for active involvement.  

A brief review of the web sites for the other four FRMPs assessed indicates that the Internet 
was  used  to  inform  stakeholders  and  the  public.  Moreover,  for  at  least  the  Sardinia  FRMP 

(ITR201),  stakeholders  were  identified  and  contacted  directly.  The  website  for  ITE  (Central 
Apennines)  lists  10  meetings  concerning  the  FRMP.  The  reporting  sheet  for  ITR2161I020 

(Ofanto and Puglia) states that an informational forum was held in Bari in June 2013, bringing 
together  100  representatives  of  interest  groups  including  local  governments,  orders  of 

professions,  research  institutes  and  universities,  agriculture  and  a  range  of  public  authorities 
including  local  governments,  regional  bodies  and  the  Civil  Protection  services  (however,  it 

appears from information on the Puglia Region's website that this focused on FHRM work).  

The UoM reporting sheet for ITR201 (Sardinia) states that meetings were held in this region to 

inform citizens and involve professionals working on flood issues. Moreover, the draft FRMP, 
including  a  non-technical  summary,  was  published  on  the  regional  basin  authority's  website 

together with a notification published in Italy's official national gazette.  

Several UoM reporting sheets, including that for ITR2161I020 (Ofanto and Puglia) mention a 
national  information  campaign  entitled  "Io  -  non  rischio"  (I  don't  risk),  carried  out  by  the 

national  Department  of  Civil  Protection.  The  website  of  the  campaign  provides  public 
information  related  to  floods,  sea  storms  and  earthquakes.  These  references  do  not  clearly 

indicate if this campaign informed the public also about the consultation  process of the draft 
FRMPs,  and  no  information  was  found  on  the  website  itself,  which  -  while  providing 

interactive maps on historical floods and other information on flood risks - does not appear to 
refer to the FRMPs or the Floods Directive133. 

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

133  Reporting 

sheets; 

- 
http://www.abtevere.it/node/929;    Puglia  Region  -  http://www.adb.puglia.it/public/page.php?99;  National 
Department of Civil Protection, http://iononrischio.protezionecivile.it/  

(Central  Apennines) 

Eastern  Alps 

FRMP, 

(ITA) 

4.3.1; 

ITE 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 10 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet  

Digital social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

Training course 

ITA 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

ITR161I020 

ITR201 

ITE 

✔ 

ITI023 
and 
ITR131 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

Information  about  the  consultation  was  found  in  the  FRMPs  for  the  Eastern  Alps  (ITA), 
Central Apennines (ITE), Puglia/Ofanto (ITR2161I020) and Sardinia (ITR201)134.  

For ITA, a series of public meetings were held in seven provincial capitals: topics included the 
types  of  measures  under  consideration  and  the  plan  itself,  participants  were  invited  to  help 

define priorities among the measures. A final set of meetings (outside the consultation period) 
just before the publication of the final FRMP presented the observations that had been received 

and the changes made in response to these modifications.  

For  ITE  as  well,  public  meetings  were  held  across  the  RBD.  Although  no  information  was 
found in the FRMP for the Abruzzo/Sangro UoMs (ITI023 and ITR131), the website for ITE 
(Central  Apennines), the RBD of which the Abruzzo/Sangro UoMs are  part135, indicates that 
two meetings were held in the Abruzzo Region in 2015. 

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

Table 11 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

ITA 

ITE 

ITR161I020 

ITR201 

ITI023 
and 
ITR131 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  

Direct mailing (post)  

Paper copies distributed at exhibitions  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

134  Eastern  Alps  (ITA)  FRMP,  4.3.3.  Sardinia  (ITR201),  FRMP,  4.  Central  Apennines  (ITE),  website, 
two  forums  were  activated  (link: 

http://www.abtevere.it/node/879.  For  Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020) 
http://www.adb.puglia.it/public/page.php?99  

135  Central Apennines (ITE), website, http://www.abtevere.it/node/879. This information is also found in Chapter 

11 of the FRMP for ITE.  

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Paper copies available in municipal 
buildings (town hall, library etc.)  
Copies provided at public meetings 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

For  four  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  the  draft  plan  was  available  on  the  UoM  authority's 

website.  For  ITA  (Eastern  Alps),  the  draft  FRMP  was  also  distributed  via  direct  mailing. 
Copies  of  the  Puglia/Ofanto  FRMP  were  available  for  download,  at  meetings  and  at 

exhibitions; and copies of the Central Apennines FRMP were available at public meetings. For 
Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131), no information was found136. 

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 12 

Groups of stakeholders  

ITA 

ITE 

ITR161I020 

ITR201 

ITI023 
and 
ITR131 

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

✔ 

✔ 

Drainage Authorities  

Emergency services  

Water supply and sanitation  

Agriculture / farmers  

Energy / hydropower  

Navigation / ports  

Fisheries / aquaculture  

Private business (Industry, Commerce, 
Services) 
NGO's including nature protection, social 
issues (e.g. children, housing) 

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  

Academia / Research Institutions  

Sports association, trade unions and the 
Regional Order of Engineers  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

136  Eastern Alps (ITA) FRMP, 4.3.3. Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), FRMP, 7.2. Sardinia (ITR201), FRMP, 4. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ITA 

ITE 

ITR161I020 

ITR201 

ITI023 
and 
ITR131 

Representatives of professional orders 
and local police  

✔ 

Three of the five FRMPs assessed provided information on the stakeholders that participated in 
the consultation process.  

  The FRMP for the Eastern Alps (ITA) provides a list of stakeholders which were invited 
to  participate  actively.  The  independent  stakeholders  identified  were:  fishermen, 
professional  associations,  environmentalists  and  electricity  producers.  The  FRMP 

discusses,  in  addition,  coordination  with  government  bodies  -  national  ministries  and 
authorities, regional governments, basin authorities and irrigation bodies are identified as 

relevant stakeholders.  

  The  FRMP  for  the  Central  Apennines  (ITE)  lists  the  organisations  represented,  both 

public and private, at each public meeting.  

  The FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020) mentions among the stakeholders involved: 
representatives of research bodies and universities, NGOs, agricultural  associations and 

professional societies. Government bodies are also noted, including offices of the Puglia 
regional government and irrigation bodies.  

  No information was found in the FRMPs for or Abruzzo/Sangro (ITI023 and ITR131) or 
Sardinia  (ITR201),  though  the  latter  notes  that  consultation  was  carried  out  in 
coordination  with  civil  protection  bodies137.  The  UoM  reporting  sheet  for  the  Sangro 
UoM (ITI023) both state that attention was given to the identification and involvement of 
interest groups; the specific groups, however, are not identified138. 

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

Table 13 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders 

All FRMPs assessed 

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory groups  

Involvement in drafting  

Formation of alliances  

137  Italy  subsequently  informed  that  in  Sardinia,  active  involvement  was  carried  out  through  public  events  that 
brought  together  public  and  private  stakeholders.  In  addition,  stakeholder  involvement  took  place  in  further 
events organised for the SEA of the FRMP.  

138  Eastern Alps (ITA) FRMP, 4.3.1. Puglia/Ofanto (ITR161I020), FRMP, 7.2. Sardinia (ITR201), FRMP, 4. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Public meetings 

Source: FRMPs 

All FRMPs refer to public meetings. 

All FRMPs assessed 

✔ 

In  the  Eastern  Alps  (ITA)  FRMP,  a  detailed  description  is  provided:  stakeholders  were 
involved  via  meetings,  providing  their  opinions  and  their  contributions  on  the  working 

program,  calendar and on the FRMP's evaluation of the principal problems as well as on the 
measures. As noted above, active involvement was carried out through over 50 meetings, held 

across seven provincial capitals, in both prior phases and on the draft FRMP itself. The themes 
of  the  meetings  were  established  to  promote  input  to  the  development  of  the  FRMP.  The 

agenda and presentations for each meeting are available (as of early 2018) on the ITA website. 
The  FRMP  for  ITA  also  notes  that  an  international  meeting  was  held  in  September  2015  to 

compare FRMP approaches with those in Austria, France, Hungary, Slovenia and the Danube 
IRBD. It is not clear, however, if this meeting provided an opportunity for active involvement 

of stakeholders in ITA, or (given its late stage in the process) if it influenced the final FRMP. 
The FRMP for ITA describes also the mechanism for coordination among government bodies 

used  for  the  preparation  of  the  FRMP:  a  working  group  that  brought  together  national 
ministries  and  other  bodies,  sub-basin  authorities,  regional  governments  (as  well  as  the  two 

autonomous provinces) and irrigation bodies met 20 times over the course of 2015.  

The  UoM  reporting  sheet  for  ITR2161I020  (Ofanto  and  Puglia)  states  that  a  regional  forum 

presenting the FRMP was held in Bari in late July 2015 and allowed the active participation of 
over  100  participants,  including  experts,  researchers,  civil  protection  workers  and  officials 

from public bodies. The activities included a written questionnaire given to all participants to 
gauge their awareness of flood risk issues.  

For the Central Apennines (ITE), a series of meetings were held across the regions in the basin; 
these included meetings  in  the Sangro UoM (ITI023)139. The  agendas  and  materials  for each 
meeting are provided on the web site for ITE140. 

139  UoM  Reporting  Sheets  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed;  Eastern  Alps  (ITA)  FRMP,  4.3;  ITA  website, 
; 

http://www.alpiorientali.it/pgra-i-materiali-degli-incontri-focal-point.html 
http://www.adb.puglia.it/public/news.php?item.319  

140  See: http://www.abtevere.it/node/879  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.4 

Effects of consultation 

The table below shows the effects of consultation: 

Table 14 

Effects of consultation 

ITA 

ITE 

ITR161I020 

ITR201 

ITI023 
and 
ITR131 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Changes to selection of measures 

Adjustment to specific measures 

Addition of new information 

Changes to the methodology used 

Commitment to further research 

Commitment to action in the next 
FRMP cycle 

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

Source: FRMPs 

One of the five FRMPs assessed provides an overview of the comments received and how they 
are  addressed:  the  FRMP  for  Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020)  lists  stakeholder  observations 

received  in  the  consultation  process  and  the  actions  taken  (e.g.  ‘accepted’  or  ‘to  be 
implemented’)141.  

For  the  other  four  FRMPs  assessed,  specific  information  was  not  found  in  the  FRMPs 
themselves on the effects of consultation on the FRMPs142. For ITA, however, the last public 
meetings presented the results of the consultation. A presentation available on the authority's 
web site indicates that 69 submissions were received on the plan and its SEA, containing 357 

individual observations. These were grouped into eight major themes: rivers, maps, measures, 
coherence (with  other documents), assessment of impacts,  monitoring and various comments 

on  the  plan  and  on  the  SEA.  This  presentation  does  not  detail  the  changes  made,  though  it 

141  FRMP Puglia/Ofanto, Table 7.1. 
142  Italy  subsequently  informed  that  for  the  Central  Apennines  (ITE)  the  public  consultation  process  for  the 
FRMP merged with the one carried out for the SEA of the Plan. As a part of the SEA, all the contributions of 
each stakeholder  were summarized and for each, a preliminary investigation  was prepared explaining if and 
how the  contribution  was integrated into  the  plan. For Sardinia (ITR201) as  well, public consultations  were 
held during the SEA of the FRMP. Stakeholder observations were received and answered in an annex to the 
environmental  report  ("RAPPORTO  AMBIENTALE  -  Allegato  I  C.  Controdeduzioni  alle  osservazioni 
pervenute").  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
appears these include considerations on the feasibility of measures and their timescales and on 
better coordination with the WFD143. 

Further information was not found for the other three FRMPs assessed. 

Two of the FRMP assessed - for ITE Central Apennines and Sardinia (ITR201) - mention that 

a participative mechanism, river contracts, will be used in the implementation of the FRMPs at 
local level144. 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

All  five  FRMPs  assessed  included  an  SEA  procedure.  For  all  five,  it  appears  that  public 

participation in the SEA was coordinated with the consultation on the FRMPs. The FRMP for 
the  Central  Apennines  (ITE),  for  example,  provides  an  overview  of  all  the  observations 

presented  by  the  public:  in  the  website  for  the  plan,  it  is  possible  to  see  which  observations 
were accepted and which were not145.   

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

governance 

The following good practice was identified: 

  For ITA (the RBD for the Eastern Alps), a series of about 50 meetings was held across 
the district and along the preparation period of the FRMP. The themes of the meetings 
were  linked  to  the  phase  of  development  of  the FRMP,  ensuring  input  from  the  public 

and  stakeholders.  A  final  set  of  meetings  described  the  results  of  the  consultation  and 
active  involvement  process  and  presented  an  overview  of  how  contributions  had  been 

addressed in the final version of the plan. Key materials from the meetings - agendas and 
presentations - are posted on the ITA website146. 

143  ITA, Presentation on results of the consultation: 

http://www.alpiorientali.it/files/convegni_2015/2007_Bisaglia_Baruffi_Udine_02_12_15.pdf  

144  See for example the page on river contracts on Sardinia’s FRMP web site: 

http://www.regione.sardegna.it/pianogestionerischioalluvioni/contrattidifiume/   

145  Central  Apennines  (ITE),  FRMP,  12,  p.193;  in  "Controdeduzioni  alle  osservazioni  pervenute  in  fase  di 
consultazione  pubblica",  p.7.  Puglia/Ofanto  (ITR161I020),  FRMP,  5.3.5,  p.79.  For  Sardinia  (ITR201),  the 
Eastern Alps (ITA), Sangro (ITI023) the information is provided on their websites. 

146  Italy  subsequently  informed  that  other  FRMPs,  not  included  in  the  assessed  ones,  provide  extensive 

information on the participation process. This is seen for example for the Po UoM (ITN008): 
http://pianoalluvioni.adbpo.it/partecipazione-pubblica-pgra-2015/  
Also for the Emilia-Romagna region for three UoMs (ITI021, ITR081 and ITI01319): 
http://ambiente.regione.emilia-romagna.it/suolo-bacino/sezioni/piano-di-gestione-del-rischio-
alluvioni/partecipazione-pubb   

70 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
The following area for further development was identified: 

  The  information  provided  on  the  consultation  process  varies  across  the  five  FRMPs 
assessed: for several FRMPs, limited information is provided in the plans themselves on 

the approach to consultation or its effects.  

The  FRMP  for  the  Arno  UoM  (ITN002)  moreover  contains  a  list  of  comments  received  during  the 
participation process from stakeholders and local authorities, as well as detail on the process itself. 

71 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

This  Annex  gives  an  overview  of  the  data  on  measures  provided  by  Italy  in  the  reporting 

sheets. These tables and charts were used for the preparation of section 4 on measures.   

Background & method 

This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans 
(FRMPs). The tables and charts below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the 

Member States and were used by the Member State assessor to complete the questions on the 
Flood measures. The data are extracted from the XMLs (reporting sheets) reported by MS for 

each FRMP, and are split into the following sections: 

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

  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; 

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

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

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

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

  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts.  

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive)147, not 
all fields are mandatory, and, as such, not all MS 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, MS assessors were asked to refer to the raw data 

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

 

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

data sorted. 

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

72 

 
 
                                                 
  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 table148 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 

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

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

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ........... 82 
Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect ............. 83 
Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A5: Category of cost by measure aspect ........................... 84 
Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A6: Category of cost by UoM ........................................... 85 
Figure A5: Visualisation of Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect ..................... 87 
Figure A6: Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by UoM ..................................... 90 
Figure A7: Visualisation of Table A9: Timetable by measure aspect ..................................... 91 
Figure A8: Visualisation of Table A10: Timetable by UoM ................................................... 92 
Figure A9: Visualisation of Table A11: Level of responsible authority by measure aspect ... 94 
Figure A10: Visualisation of Table A12: Level of responsible authority by UoM ................. 97 
Figure A11: Visualisation of Table A13: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ..... 98 
Figure A12: Visualisation of Table A14: Progress of implementation by UoM ................... 101 
Figure A13: Visualisation of Table A15: Reference to the WFD by measure aspect ........... 104 
Figure A14: Visualisation of Table A16: Reference to the WFD by UoM ........................... 106 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ..................................................................................... 75 
Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM ................................ 75 
Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM ............................... 77 
Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual)  per measure type and UoM, 
including duplicates ................................................................................................................. 79 
Table A5: Category of cost by measure aspect ........................................................................ 84 
Table A6: Category of cost by UoM........................................................................................ 85 
Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect .................................................................. 87 
Table A8: Category of priority by UoM .................................................................................. 87 
Table A9: Timetable by measure aspect .................................................................................. 91 
Table A10: Timetable by UoM ................................................................................................ 92 
Table A11: Level of responsible authority by measure aspect ................................................ 94 
Table A12: Level of responsible authority by UoM ................................................................ 95 
Table A13: Progress of implementation by measure aspect .................................................... 98 
Table A14: Progress of implementation by UoM .................................................................... 99 
Table A15: Reference to the WFD by measure aspect .......................................................... 103 
Table A16: Reference to the WFD by UoM .......................................................................... 104 

74 

 
 
 
 
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 measures149  
Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 150 
Total number of measures151  
Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type152 
Range of number of measures between UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type(Min-Max) 

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

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

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review  Other 

M21  M22  M23  M24  M31  M32  M33  M34  M35  M41 

M42 

M51 

M61 

ITI012 

ITI01319 

ITI014 

ITI015 

ITI017 

2 

31 

2 

20 

1 

67 

5 

4 

1 

3 

149  Italy subsequently informed that there was a reporting inaccuracy and the correct number should be 6 743 aggregated measures. 
150  Italy subsequently informed that the correct number should be 8 247 aggregated measures. 
151  Italy subsequently informed that the correct number should be 8 348 measures. 
152  Italy subsequently informed that the correct number should be 10 067 measures. 

75 

1 605 

1 820 

6 741 

8 244 

8 346 

10 064 

1-888 

214 

Grand Total 

4 

20 

1 

103 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
ITI018 

ITI021 

ITI022 

ITI024 

ITI026 

ITI027 

ITI028 

ITN001 

ITN002 

ITN003 

ITN004 

ITN005 

ITN006 

ITN007 

ITN008 

ITN009 

ITN010 

ITN011 

ITR051 

ITR061 

ITR071 

ITR081 

ITR091 

ITR092 

ITR093 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review  Other 

Grand Total 

M21  M22  M23  M24  M31  M32  M33  M34  M35  M41 

M42 

M51 

M61 

1 

2 

12 

4 

4 

1 

1 

2 

2 

10 

2 

1 

2 

2 

10 

7 

1 

1 

2 

1 

5 

150 

18 

3 

5 

5 

19 

1 

2 

4 

3 

5 

3 

2 

1 

8 

10 

1 

56 

8 

1 

1 

2 

24 

39 

15 

3 

33 

15 

13 

101 

6 

88 

7 

2 

25 

24 

21 

15 

49 

3 

24 

5 

7 

59 

2 

2 

36 

1 

4 

5 

3 

3 

1 

4 

3 

4 

2 

6 

76 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

2 

1 

3 

5 

2 

3 

1 

1 

6 

2 

5 

1 

2 

3 

1 

1 

6 

1 

11 

11 

24 

39 

27 

4 

39 

21 

17 

118 

172 

114 

10 

15 

38 

33 

116 

19 

62 

15 

46 

21 

11 

62 

12 

8 

72 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review  Other 

Grand Total 

M21  M22  M23  M24  M31  M32  M33  M34  M35  M41 

M42 

M51 

M61 

ITR111 

ITR131 

ITR141 

ITR161I020 

ITR171 

ITSNP01 

Grand Total 

5 

14 

28 

15 

102 

8 

7 

54 

93 

14 

4 

3 

21 

1 

2 

39 

39 

38 

251 

3 

15 

1 

287 

1 098 

38 

12 

13 

3 

Average per UoM 
3 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

<1 

<1 

31 

3 

2 

8 

1 

19 

18 

72 

2 

27 

1 

9 

<1 

3 

8 

1 

23 

1 

94 

69 

69 

281 

5 

51 

1 820 

51 

1 

<1 

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

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review  Other 

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

Grand Total 

ITI012 

ITI01319 

ITI014 

ITI015 

ITI017 

ITI018 

ITI021 

ITI022 

ITI023 

ITI024 

ITI025 

11 

11 

4 

7 

2 

5 

9 

7 

1 

11 

14 

7 

3 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

5 

1 

50 

12 

12 

1 

12 

1 

1 

41 

2 

172 

44 

12 

123 

15 

27 

9 

62 

9 

4 

27 

63 

6 

7 

3 

7 

1 

3 

7 

7 

3 

161 

86 

43 

8 

2 

1 

1 

10 

2 

7 

9 

24 

4 

1 

4 

9 

97 

8 

1 

4 

2 

1 

4 

1 

13 

4 

77 

63 

11 

2 

8 

4 

3 

10 

6 

4 

55 

9 

8 

7 

6 

3 

4 

9 

7 

3 

2 

10 

11 

20 

14 

5 

8 

21 

22 

13 

8 

7 

28 

21 

6 

7 

3 

2 

7 

6 

7 

2 

2 

9 

9 

6 

5 

1 

6 

5 

5 

6 

5 

6 

9 

1 

1 

2 

4 

2 

2 

3 

3 

2 

2 

3 

2 

8 

7 

4 

4 

541 

118 

48 

148 

54 

63 

108 

116 

45 

497 

193 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review  Other 

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

Grand Total 

ITI026 

ITI027 

ITI028 

ITI029 

ITN001 

ITN002 

ITN003 

ITN004 

ITN005 

ITN006 

ITN007 

ITN008 

ITN009 

ITN010 

ITN011 

ITR051 

ITR061 

ITR071 

ITR081 
ITR091153 
ITR092 
ITR093154 
ITR111 

ITR121 

1 

7 

6 

11 

10 

7 

5 

3 

9 

2 

1 

57 

2 

12 

9 

1 

2 

2 

9 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

1 

3 

5 

3 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

5 

2 

19 

5 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

12 

37 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

3 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

12 

2 

1 

7 

61 

9 

138 

20 

9 

15 

8 

94 

8 

7 

210 

9 

113 

94 

7 

8 

6 

25 

16 

5 

8 

44 

1 

7 

1 

27 

1 

3 

1 

29 

42 

11 

1 

11 

5 

50 

15 

1 

5 

7 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

5 

19 

5 

5 

1 

2 

7 

2 

2 

8 

1 

1 

4 

1 

15 

24 

4 

2 

1 

4 

5 

9 

3 

15 

22 

45 

3 

31 

5 

5 

9 

68 

15 

40 

2 

9 

5 

1 

24 

28 

62 

120 

1 

3 

6 

22 

37 

5 

1 

4 

3 

11 

5 

3 

56 

4 

22 

13 

3 

3 

9 

17 

8 

17 

109 

1 

3 

3 

8 

10 

10 

9 

6 

2 

8 

6 

5 

13 

8 

20 

25 

29 

15 

21 

14 

11 

21 

13 

101 

182 

3 

37 

6 

3 

1 

4 

7 

5 

5 

5 

4 

2 

21 

47 

8 

13 

13 

17 

13 

6 

6 

6 

8 

6 

5 

2 

3 

8 

10 

3 

8 

5 

8 

7 

5 

90 

8 

30 

5 

5 

4 

6 

7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

11 

6 

4 

5 

1 

32 

2 

5 

4 

5 

1 

1 

36 

6 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

6 

8 

5 

4 

3 

2 

2 

3 

2 

8 

3 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

4 

3 

36 

126 

119 

348 

100 

156 

66 

45 

173 

68 

38 

888 

73 

402 

170 

36 

47 

54 

104 

84 

65 

153 

312 

17 

153 Italy subsequently informed that there was a reporting inaccuracy: there should be one M53 measure and the total for ITR091 should be 85 measures for ITR091. 
154 Italy subsequently informed that there was a reporting inaccuracy: there should be 63 M33 measures and 37 M51 measures for a total 155 measures for ITR093. 

78 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review  Other 

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

Grand Total 

ITR131 

ITR141 

ITR151 

ITR152 

ITR153 

ITR154 

ITR161I020 

ITR171 

ITR181I016 

ITR191 

ITR201 

1 

7 

9 

14 

14 

9 

11 

11 

9 

13 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

5 

5 

2 

1 

2 

45 

2 

2 

36 

1 

71 

4 

2 

1 

6 

62 

105 

84 

83 

104 

78 

204 

62 

12 

24 

18 

7 

9 

11 

9 

9 

13 

88 

8 

7 

2 

2 

5 

9 

3 

3 

5 

6 

39 

15 

71 

13 

13 

64 

21 

1 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

4 

10 

207 

27 

2 

3 

1 

4 

2 

5 

2 

2 

1 

5 

13 

ITSNP01 
Grand Total155 
Average per UoM 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

2 420 

1 284 

408 

366 

515 

191 

201 

14 

24 

11 

48 

20 

34 

97 

51 

27 

9 

2 

9 

4 

4 

8 

11 

8 

56 

12 

12 

47 

18 

79 

10 

4 

4 

28 

826 

18 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

3 

5 

5 

5 

5 

14 

6 

2 

2 

2 

5 

7 

8 

8 

7 

7 

8 

29 

13 

10 

7 

7 

4 

2 

2 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

10 

11 

5 

5 

2 

8 

1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

1 

2 

3 

2 

5 

5 

2 

5 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

379 

8 

818 

17 

339 

233 

7 

5 

17 

<1 

135 

3 

15 

<1 

98 

134 

338 

175 

172 

308 

227 

732 

120 

60 

62 

207 

8 244 

175 

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

Prevention 

Aggr. 

Ind. 

Total 

Protection 

Aggr. 

Ind. 

Total 

Preparedness 

Aggr. 

Ind. 

Total 

Recovery & review 

Aggr. 

Ind. 

Total 

Other 

Aggr. 

Ind. 

Total  Grand Total 

ITI012 

ITI01319 

ITI014 

ITI015 

ITI017 

240 

2 

242 

257 

53 

13 

82 

13 

53 

13 

113 

13 

26 

18 

43 

6 

31 

2 

20 

1 

72 

5 

259 

46 

19 

115 

11 

34 

28 

14 

13 

32 

34 

28 

14 

13 

35 

10 

7 

3 

10 

3 

3 

10 

7 

3 

10 

3 

4 

4 

545 

138 

49 

251 

62 

155 Italy subsequently informed that there should be 1 285 M33 measures, 234 M51 measures and 136 M53 measures, for a total of 8 247 measures. 

79 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ITI018 

ITI021 

ITI022 

ITI023 

ITI024 

ITI025 

ITI026 

ITI027 

ITI028 

ITI029 

ITN001 

ITN002 

ITN003 

ITN004 

ITN005 

ITN006 

ITN007 

ITN008 

ITN009 

ITN010 

ITN011 

ITR051 

ITR061 

ITR071 

ITR081 

ITR091 

Prevention 

Aggr. 

Ind. 

Total 

Protection 

Aggr. 

Ind. 

Total 

Preparedness 

Aggr. 

Ind. 

Total 

Recovery & review 

Aggr. 

Ind. 

Total 

Other 

Aggr. 

Ind. 

Total  Grand Total 

173 

118 

12 

1 

4 

2 

9 

51 

72 

9 

218 

103 

10 

74 

20 

173 

38 

17 

24 

13 

9 

51 

84 

9 

219 

103 

10 

78 

20 

40 

17 

24 

13 

106 

10 

116 

13 

10 

316 

14 

130 

105 

10 

12 

11 

49 

19 

13 

11 

377 

14 

131 

113 

11 

12 

11 

50 

21 

1 

61 

1 

8 

1 

1 

2 

10 

19 

21 

18 

24 

39 

15 

34 

58 

36 

18 

218 

3 

221 

31 

3 

31 

50 

8 

104 

4 

9 

32 

18 

3 

155 

24 

155 

39 

3 

15 

10 

18 

52 

31 

40 

48 

67 

118 

121 

276 

115 

17 

37 

53 

33 

203 

40 

216 

46 

43 

34 

20 

78 

62 

37 

17 

17 

113 

172 

111 

8 

5 

35 

30 

48 

16 

61 

7 

40 

19 

10 

60 

10 

37 

27 

13 

11 

47 

41 

23 

13 

31 

43 

52 

27 

38 

23 

27 

37 

25 

380 

35 

114 

19 

26 

20 

28 

27 

12 

37 

27 

13 

11 

47 

41 

21 

13 

31 

43 

49 

27 

35 

21 

27 

34 

23 

373 

32 

114 

19 

21 

18 

27 

27 

12 

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

7 

3 

5 

2 

1 

80 

7 

7 

10 

7 

14 

18 

2 

8 

18 

14 

5 

8 

3 

2 

8 

3 

2 

40 

3 

3 

7 

2 

2 

6 

7 

1 

4 

4 

7 

7 

10 

7 

14 

18 

2 

8 

18 

14 

5 

8 

3 

2 

8 

3 

2 

87 

147 

143 

45 

501 

193 

75 

147 

136 

348 

218 

328 

180 

55 

188 

106 

71 

40 

4 

4 

1 004 

3 

3 

7 

2 

2 

6 

7 

1 

3 

1 

4 

92 

464 

185 

82 

68 

65 

166 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prevention 

Aggr. 

Ind. 

Total 

Protection 

Aggr. 

Ind. 

Total 

Preparedness 

Aggr. 

Ind. 

Total 

Recovery & review 

Aggr. 

Ind. 

Total 

Other 

Aggr. 

Ind. 

Total  Grand Total 

ITR092 

ITR093 

ITR111 

ITR121 

ITR131 

ITR141 

ITR151 

ITR152 

ITR153 

ITR154 

ITR161I020 

ITR171 

ITR181I016 

ITR191 

ITR201 

8 

11 

50 

4 

9 

72 

161 

101 

100 

151 

95 

291 

75 

27 

29 

19 

28 

8 

11 

69 

4 

9 

100 

161 

101 

100 

151 

95 

291 

75 

27 

29 

43 

92 

241 

2 

71 

39 

150 

44 

42 

130 

62 

411 

26 

18 

13 

8 

61 

72 

61 

41 

280 

5 

51 

153 

313 

2 

132 

80 

150 

44 

42 

130 

342 

416 

26 

18 

13 

12 

12 

13 

9 

11 

13 

18 

17 

17 

18 

53 

24 

17 

11 

17 

27 

80 

ITSNP01 
Grand Total156 
Average per UoM 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

1 549  4 566 

3 502 

3 291 

3 017 

1 536 

107 

115 

139 

211 

75 

24 

64 

33 

70 

10 

36 

97 

33 

1 

4 

12 

12 

13 

9 

11 

13 

18 

17 

17 

18 

53 

24 

17 

11 

17 

10 

2 

38 

8 

2 

7 

10 

9 

13 

13 

9 

17 

6 

2 

4 

3 

2 

11 

3 

8 

1 

2 

49 

11 

2 

15 

10 

9 

13 

13 

9 

18 

6 

2 

4 

3 

2 

73 

225 

406 

17 

167 

203 

338 

175 

172 

308 

508 

737 

120 

60 

62 

258 

1 572 

33 

385 

8 

23 

<1 

408 

9 

15 

<1 

1 

<1 

16 

<1 

10 064 

214 

156  Based on Italy’s corrections, there should be a total of 3 018 aggregate protection measures, 4 567 total protection measures, 387 aggregate recovery and review measures, 

410 total recovery and review measures and 10 067 total measures. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 

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

82 

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

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

83 

 
 
 
 
Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

  Cost explanation (optional field). 

Information on cost in the reporting sheets was provided for 450 measures in Italy, spread over 
three UoMs. The reported costs ranged from less than €1 m to over €20 m. 138 measures gave 

information for “cost explanation”, noting that these measures did not all contain information 
for cost. For the most part, this information seems to denote where the budget came from – e.g. 

the responsible authority.  

Table A5: Category of cost by measure aspect  

<1M 

1-5M 

5.1-10M 

15.1-20M  10.1-15M 

>20M  Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & Review 

Grand Total 

12 

49 

4 

65 

9 

219 

2 

230 

8 

84 

2 

1 

95 

5 

6 

11 

3 

22 

1 

26 

23 

23 

37 

403 

9 

1 

450 

Notes:  The  total  includes  measures  assigned  to  more  than  one  measure  type.  Only  3  UoMs 

reported quantitative information on costs. 

Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A5: Category of cost by measure aspect 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. Only three UoMs 
reported quantitative information on costs. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A6: Category of cost by UoM  

<1M 

1-5M 

5.1-10M 

10.1-15M 

15.1-20M 

>20M  Grand Total 

ITR161I020 

ITR191 

ITSNP01 

Grand Total 

Average by UoM 

52 

8 

5 

65 

22 

177 

4 

49 

230 

77 

39 

2 

54 

95 

32 

13 

1 

12 

26 

9 

5 

6 

11 

6 

17 

6 

23 

12 

303 

15 

132 

450 

150 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. Only three UoMs 
reported quantitative information on costs. 

Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A6: Category of cost by UoM 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. Only three UoMs 
reported quantitative information on costs. 

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to report information on the following: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); 

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

Location of measures 

Italy has reported 2 282 different responses for location of the measures in its reporting sheets. 
A quantitative analysis is therefore unfeasible.  

Geographic coverage 

Italy provided information about the geographic coverage of the measures for 1 458 measures 

in eight UoMs (ITI01319, ITI021, ITN002, ITR051, ITR081, ITR111, ITR191 and ITSNP01) 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
in  its  reporting  sheets.  However,  the  responses  vary  a  lot  and  aggregation  of  the  data  is  not 
feasible.  

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

in the textual part of the XML); 

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

is required); 

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

required). 

Objectives 

The Guidance Document indicates that for each measure, an “Explanation of how the measure 

contributes to the objectives” can be provided (this is an optional field).  

In its reporting sheets, Italy has reported objectives for 2 545 measures, spread over 14 UoMs 

(ITI01319,  ITI018,  ITI021,  ITN002,  ITN008,  ITR071,  ITR081,  ITR091,  ITR092,  ITR093, 
ITR111,  ITR161I020,  ITR191,  ITSNP01).  A  total  of  676  different  responses  were  reported. 

779  measures  have  been  assigned  one  or  more  numerical  codes  (e.g.  OB1),  although  such  a 
system  is  only  used  for  four  UoMs  (ITI01319,  ITI021,  ITN002,  ITR081).  Due  to  the  large 

number of different responses aggregation of the data is not feasible.  

Category of priority 

Member  States  were  asked  to  provide  information  for  the  priority  of  the  measures.  The 
following categories are used in the reporting sheets: 

  Critical; 

  Very high; 

  High; 

  Moderate; 

  Low. 

Italy  reported  the  priority  for  9  055  measures.  Ten  UoMs  did  not  report  any  information 
regarding  the  category  of  priority  (ITI017,  ITI026,  ITN001,  ITN003,  ITN004,  ITN006, 

ITN007, ITN009, ITR051, ITR061). 

86 

 
 
Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect  

Critical 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparednes
s 
Recovery & 
Review 
Other 

Grand 
Total 

266 

478 

36 

21 

6 

807 

2 350 

1 851 

742 

305 

1 

574 

1 410 

421 

42 

8 

5 249 

2 455 

139 

234 

47 

13 

1 

434 

12 

86 

12 

No 
informati
on 

161 

507 

314 

27 

Grand 
Total 

3 502 

4 566 

1 572 

408 

16 

110 

1 009 

10 064 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 10 UoMs did not 

report any information for this field. 

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

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 10 UoMs did not 
report any information for this field. 

Table A8: Category of priority by UoM  

Critical 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

ITI012 

ITI0131
9 
ITI014 

ITI015 

14 

38 

3 

435 

26 

37 

118 

91 

69 

8 

133 

2 

3 

5 

1 

87 

No 
informatio
n 

Grand 
Total 

545 

138 

49 

251 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Critical 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

ITI017 

ITI018 

ITI021 

ITI022 

ITI023 

ITI024 

ITI025 

ITI026 

ITI027 

ITI028 

ITI029 

ITN001 

ITN002 

ITN003 

ITN004 

ITN005 

ITN006 

ITN007 

ITN008 

ITN009 

ITN010 

ITN011 

ITR051 

ITR061 

ITR071 

ITR081 

ITR091 

ITR092 

ITR093 

ITR111 

ITR121 

ITR131 

ITR141 

ITR151 

ITR152 

ITR153 

ITR154 

ITR161
I020 
ITR171 

ITR181
I016 
ITR191 

3 

42 

24 

11 

1 

33 

185 

46 

161 

36 

38 

41 

47 

1 

53 

22 

112 

34 

406 

193 

115 

56 

317 

177 

30 

77 

29 

11 

23 

29 

32 

30 

1 

6 

2 

43 

1 

36 

116 

2 

170 

18 

232 

58 

161 

43 

35 

50 

52 

190 

41 

46 

120 

249 

162 

160 

226 

382 

533 

108 

15 

558 

168 

24 

18 

81 

45 

20 

34 

99 

121 

75 

53 

13 

12 

44 

81 

138 

11 

43 

28 

145 

4 

3 

1 

1 

1 

104 

17 

8 

3 

16 

1 

1 

88 

5 

2 

1 

1 

93 

1 

1 

1 

3 

No 
informatio
n 

62 

75 

218 

180 

55 

106 

71 

92 

82 

68 

Grand 
Total 

62 

87 

147 

143 

45 

501 

193 

75 

147 

136 

348 

218 

328 

180 

55 

188 

106 

71 

1 004 

92 

464 

185 

82 

68 

65 

166 

96 

73 

225 

406 

17 

167 

203 

338 

175 

172 

308 

508 

737 

120 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Critical 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

12 

71 

807 

23 

92 

27 

94 

5 249 

2455 

1 

434 

No 
informatio
n 

Grand 
Total 

62 

258 

110 

1009 

10 064 

17 

112 

52 

9 

2 

21 

214 

ITR201 

ITSNP0
1 
Grand 
Total 

Average 
per 
UoM 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 10 UoMs did not 
report any information for this field. 

89 

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

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type.10 UoMs did not 
report any information for this field. 

90 

 
 
 
 
Timetable 

In  its  reporting  sheets  for  all  UoMs,  Italy  reported  information  on  the  timetable  for  1  047 
measures, spread over the UoMs which did not provide information on the category of priority: 

ITI017, ITI026, ITN001, ITN003, ITN004, ITN006, ITN007, ITN009, ITR051, ITR061. 38 of 
these  measures  stated  that  the  measure  was  in  the  first  cycle  (sometimes  differentiating 

between the first part and second part of the cycle). The information for the remaining 1 009 
measures is presented below. 

Table A9: Timetable by measure aspect 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
Review 

Grand 
Total 

Ia  fase - A (2016-2018) 

Ia  fase - B (2019 - 2021) 

Ia  fase (2016 - 2021) 

Ia fase – A (2016 - 2018) 

Ia fase - B (2019 - 2021) 

Ia fase (2016 - 2021) 

IIa fase (2022 - 2027) 

IIa fase (2022 - 2027) 

48 

24 

73 

4 

2 

7 

3 

71 

59 

305 

14 

9 

24 

19 

6 

82 

54 

131 

13 

6 

17 

10 

1 

10 

14 

1 

2 

201 

147 

523 

31 

18 

50 

32 

7 

Grand Total 

507 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 37 UoMs did not 

1 009 

161 

314 

27 

report any information for this field. 

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

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 37 UoMs did not 

report any information for this field. 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A10: Timetable by UoM 

6
2
0
I
T
I

13 

7 

54 

1
0
0
N
T
I

56 

40 

3
0
0
N
T
I

23 

17 

116 

133 

4
0
0
N
T
I

14 

17 

22 

7
1
0
I
T
I

Ia  fase - A (2016 - 2018) 

18 

8 

33 

Ia  fase - B (2019 - 2021) 

Ia  fase (2016 - 2021) 

Ia fase - A (2016 - 2018) 

Ia fase - B (2019 - 2021) 

Ia fase (2016 - 2021) 

IIa  fase (2022 - 2027) 

3 

1 

6 

7 

2 

IIa fase (2022 - 2027) 

6
0
0
N
T
I

31 

18 

50 

7 

7
0
0
N
T
I

13 

7 

50 

9
0
0
N
T
I

31 

24 

34 

1
5
0
R
T
I

13 

7 

58 

1
6
0
R
T
I

20 

20 

23 

1 

3 

4 

5 

d
n
a
r
G

l
a
t
o
T

201 

147 

523 

31 

18 

50 

32 

7 

Grand Total 

62 

75 

218 

180 

55 

106 

71 

92 

82 

68 

1 009 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 37 UoMs did not 
report any information for this field. 

Figure A8: Visualisation of Table A10: Timetable by UoM 

IIa fase (2022 - 2027)

7 

IIa  fase (2022 - 2027)

3 

1 

6 

7 

2 

1 

3 

4 

5 

Ia fase (2016 - 2021)

Ia fase - B (2019 - 2021)

Ia fase - A (2016 - 2018)

50 

18 

31 

Ia  fase (2016 - 2021)

33 

54 

116 

133 

22 

50 

34 

58 

23 

Ia  fase - B (2019 - 2021)

8 

7 

40 

17 

17 

7 

24 

7 

20 

Ia  fase - A (2016 - 2018)

18 

13 

56 

23 

14 

13 

31 

13 

20 

0%

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

ITI017

ITI026

ITN001

ITN003

ITN004

ITN006

ITN007

ITN009

ITR051

ITR061

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 37 UoMs did not 
report any information for this field. 

Measure details: authorities 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

92 

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

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

In its reporting sheets,  Italy indicated either the level of responsible authority or the name of 
the responsible authority was reported. This meant that the level of responsible authority was 

able to be derived for all measures.  

93 

 
 
 
Table A11: Level of responsible authority by measure aspect  

Operator 

Municipality 

Provincial 
Authorities 

Regional 
Authorities 

National 
Authorities 

Civil 
Protection 

Other 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & Review 

Other 

367 

241 

7 

Grand Total 

615 

427 

1 182 

53 

27 

1 689 

74 

192 

59 

8 

333 

2 461 

2 361 

1 354 

320 

15 

6 511 

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

39 

46 

85 

1 

22 

4 

27 

133 

590 

31 

49 

1 

804 

3 502 

4 566 

1 572 

408 

16 

10 064 

Figure A9: Visualisation of Table A11: Level of responsible authority by measure aspect  

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

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A12: Level of responsible authority by UoM  

Operator 

Municipality 

Regional 
Authorities 

Provincial 
Authorities 

National 
Authorities 

Civil Protection 

Other 

Grand Total 

116 

1 

104 

1 

52 

7 

ITI012 

ITI01319 

ITI014 

ITI015 

ITI017 

ITI018 

ITI021 

ITI022 

ITI023 

ITI024 

ITI025 

ITI026 

ITI027 

ITI028 

ITI029 

ITN001 

ITN002 

ITN003 

ITN004 

ITN005 

ITN006 

ITN007 

ITN008 

ITN009 

ITN010 

119 

12 

1 

2 

7 

1 

114 

4 

24 

45 

10 

87 

9 

1 

28 

9 

9 

48 

10 

105 

252 

119 

39 

251 

62 

84 

133 

143 

41 

265 

187 

65 

147 

78 

237 

67 

138 

126 

45 

145 

87 

52 

882 

72 

302 

9 

1 

3 

1 

17 

2 

131 

15 

45 

36 

11 

95 

1 

1 

9 

9 

8 

2 

9 

9 

4 

9 

49 

6 

9 

5 

3 

15 

1 

11 

12 

1 

88 

1 

13 

1 

1 

27 

1 

46 

545 

138 

49 

251 

62 

87 

147 

143 

45 

501 

193 

75 

147 

136 

348 

218 

328 

180 

55 

188 

106 

71 

1 004 

92 

464 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operator 

Municipality 

Regional 
Authorities 

Provincial 
Authorities 

National 
Authorities 

Civil Protection 

Other 

Grand Total 

ITN011 

ITR051 

ITR061 

ITR071 

ITR081 

ITR091 

ITR092 

ITR093 

ITR111 

ITR121 

ITR131 

ITR141 

ITR151 

ITR152 

ITR153 

ITR154 

ITR161I020 

ITR171 

ITR181I016 

ITR191 

ITR201 

ITSNP01 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

56 

43 

11 

206 

2 

16 

615 

13 

30 

8 

8 

10 

6 

10 

1 

1 

213 

1 

1 

66 

7 

7 

59 

281 

258 

20 

7 

139 

54 

50 

44 

155 

50 

40 

73 

67 

7 

163 

203 

213 

166 

163 

202 

179 

236 

85 

39 

62 

2 

8 

9 

1 

2 

2 

54 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2 

50 

1 689 

36 

102 

6 511 

139 

333 

7 

85 

2 

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

96 

14 

12 

1 

11 

4 

36 

32 

151 

72 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

34 

35 

7 

7 

89 

804 

17 

185 

82 

68 

65 

166 

96 

73 

225 

406 

17 

167 

203 

338 

175 

172 

308 

508 

737 

120 

60 

62 

258 

10 064 

214 

7 

6 

7 

1 

27 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A10: Visualisation of Table A12: Level of responsible authority by UoM  

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

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 MS reported and whose answers are not analysed here. 

97 

 
 
 
Italy reported information about the progress of implementation of the measures. The progress 
of implementation was reported as157:  

  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  

Not started 

Ongoing 
construction 

Progress 
ongoing 

Completed 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
Review 
Other 

2 852 

2 807 

654 

169 

7 

552 

687 

846 

189 

9 

53 

794 

46 

20 

45 

278 

26 

30 

Grand Total 

2 283 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

6 489 

379 

913 

3 502 

4 566 

1 572 

408 

16 

10 064 

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

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

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

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

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Table A14: Progress of implementation by UoM  

Not started 

Ongoing 
construction 

Progress 
ongoing 

Completed 

Grand Total 

ITI012 

ITI01319 

ITI014 

ITI015 

ITI017 

ITI018 

ITI021 

ITI022 

ITI023 

ITI024 

ITI025 

ITI026 

ITI027 

ITI028 

ITI029 

ITN001 

ITN002 

ITN003 

ITN004 

ITN005 

ITN006 

ITN007 

ITN008 

ITN009 

ITN010 

ITN011 

ITR051 

ITR061 

ITR071 

ITR081 

ITR091 

ITR092 

ITR093 

ITR111 

ITR121 

ITR131 

ITR141 

ITR151 

ITR152 

ITR153 

ITR154 

526 

74 

9 

248 

43 

33 

62 

140 

14 

466 

156 

36 

144 

53 

314 

122 

69 

65 

26 

157 

45 

40 

417 

45 

64 

163 

38 

23 

25 

107 

25 

8 

33 

217 

29 

200 

316 

157 

154 

278 

19 

64 

19 

3 

5 

44 

80 

3 

26 

34 

37 

19 

3 

54 

34 

42 

47 

66 

9 

28 

27 

21 

539 

11 

292 

16 

32 

6 

22 

59 

29 

25 

65 

75 

17 

59 

3 

22 

18 

18 

22 

99 

5 

14 

5 

5 

4 

20 

14 

53 

113 

45 

20 

3 

34 

10 

38 

36 

89 

6 

12 

38 

13 

27 

26 

48 

40 

78 

8 

16 

5 

1 

1 

15 

1 

99 

4 

10 

19 

1 

5 

15 

14 

79 

74 

1 

545 

138 

49 

251 

62 

87 

147 

143 

45 

501 

193 

75 

147 

136 

348 

218 

328 

180 

55 

188 

106 

71 

1 004 

92 

464 

185 

82 

68 

65 

166 

96 

73 

225 

406 

17 

167 

203 

338 

175 

172 

308 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not started 

Ongoing 
construction 

ITR161I020 

ITR171 

ITR181I016 

ITR191 

ITR201 

ITSNP01 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

345 

720 

110 

25 

17 

131 

6 489 

138 

89 

17 

10 

35 

29 

89 

2283 

49 

Progress 
ongoing 

74 

Completed 

Grand Total 

508 

737 

120 

60 

62 

258 

10 064 

214 

1 

34 

913 

19 

15 

4 

379 

8 

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

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A12: Visualisation of Table 14: Progress of implementation by UoM  

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

101 

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

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

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

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

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

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

but are not finalized. 

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

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

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

provided any advisory session yet. 

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

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

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

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

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

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

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

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

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

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

been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

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

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed (COM) means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license 
or permit has been issued; the regulation has been adopted, etc.). If the measure 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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). 

In the reporting sheets of Italy, information was provided under “other description” for 3 773 
measures, with a total of 1 003 different responses. Qualitative analysis was not feasible. 

Nevertheless,  Italy provided information  concerning ‘other Community Acts’ in  its reporting 

sheets,  information  was  reported  for  2  578  measures,  spread  over  the  UoMs.  All  of  these 
references were to the WFD, and include information on the Key Type Measures. The tables 

and figures below show the distribution of these measures referencing the WFD by UoM and 
Measure Aspect. 

Table A15: Reference to the WFD by measure aspect 

Number of measures with reference to the WFD 

Prevention 

Preparedness 

Protection 

Recovery & Review 

Grand Total 

1 553 

125 

881 

17 

2 576 

Notes: Not all measures reported reference to the WFD. 

103 

 
 
 
  
 
 
Figure A13: Visualisation of Table A15: Reference to the WFD by measure aspect 

Notes: Not all measures reported reference to the WFD. 

Table A16: Reference to the WFD by UoM 

Number of measures with reference to the WFD 

ITI012 

ITI01319 

ITI014 

ITI015 

ITI018 

ITI021 

ITI022 

ITI023 

ITI024 

ITI025 

ITI026 

ITI027 

ITI028 

ITI029 

ITN001 

ITN002 

ITN003 

ITN004 

ITN005 

ITN006 

ITN007 

ITN008 

77 

30 

7 

88 

5 

28 

89 

9 

77 

97 

11 

87 

45 

77 

21 

25 

16 

12 

114 

19 

13 

161 

104 

 
 
 
  
Number of measures with reference to the WFD 

ITN009 

ITN010 

ITN011 

ITR051 

ITR061 

ITR071 

ITR081 

ITR091 

ITR092 

ITR093 

ITR111 

ITR121 

ITR131 

ITR141 

ITR151 

ITR152 

ITR153 

ITR154 

ITR161I020 

ITR171 

ITR181I016 

ITR191 

ITR201 

ITSNP01 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

16 

59 

121 

12 

11 

8 

44 

5 

5 

14 

141 

4 

24 

90 

120 

101 

101 

120 

185 

77 

85 

33 

26 

68 

2 578 

56 

Notes: Not all measures reported reference to the WFD. 

105 

 
 
  
 
 
Figure A14: Visualisation of Table A16: Reference to the WFD by UoM 

Notes: Not all measures reported reference to the WFD. 

106 

 
 
 
 
Annex A1: Overview of the Italian FRMPs internet links reported 

UoM Code 

Name 

Link to FRMP (as reported in WISE) 

FRMP (found at link) 

 ITA – Eastern Alps  

ITI017  

Lemene 

http://www.alpiorientali.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=389

Eastern Alps (ITA) FRMP 

&Itemid=416 (listed for all UoMs)  

(This FRMP also contains the FRMPs 

for the two autonomous provinces 
within ITA, Trento and 

Bolzano/Bozen, as annexes) 

ITI026  

Fissero-Tartaro-Canalbianco 

ITN001  

Adige 

ITN003  

Brenta-Bacchiglione 

ITN004  

Isonzo 

ITN006  

Livenza 

ITN007  

Piave 

ITN009  

Tagliamento 

ITR051  

Regionale Veneto 

ITR061  

Regionale Friuli Venezia Giulia 

107 

 
 
 
  
UoM Code 

Name 

Link to FRMP (as reported in WISE) 

FRMP (found at link) 

ITB – Po  

ITN008 

Po 

http://pianoalluvioni.adbpo.it/il-piano/  

Po (ITB) FRMP  

ITC – Northern Apennines 

ITI01319 

Conca-Marecchia 

http://ambiente.regione.emilia-romagna.it/suol 

o-bacino/sezioni/piano-di-

FRMP for ITI021, ITI01319, ITR081  

gestione-del-rischio-alluvioni/piano-gestione-del-rischio-alluvioni  

ITI014 

Fiora 

Link to the Northern Apennines web site. The link is broken but the following page 

FRMP for the Fiora UoM  

provides a link to the FRMPs of the UoMs in ITC: 
http://www.appenninosettentrionale.it/itc/?page_id=2010  

ITI018 

Magra 

Link to the Northern Apennines web site. The link is broken but the following page 

FRMP for the Magra UoM 

provides a link to the FRMPs of the UoMs in ITC: 
http://www.appenninosettentrionale.it/itc/?page_id=2010 

ITI021 

Reno 

http://ambiente.regione.emilia-romagna.it/suolo-bacino/sezioni/piano-di-gestione-
del-rischio-alluvioni/piano-gestione-del-rischio-alluvioni  

FRMP for ITI021, ITI01319, ITR081 

ITN002 

Arno 

Link to the Northern Apennines web site. The link is broken but the following page 

FRMP for the Arno UoM 

provides a link to the FRMPs of the UoMs in ITC: 
http://www.appenninosettentrionale.it/itc/?page_id=2010 

ITR071 

Regione Liguria 

http://www.ambienteinliguria.it/lirgw/eco3/ep/linkPagina.do?canale=/Home/015Te

FRMP for the Liguria regional UoM 

rritorio/004direttivaalluvioni/020pianogestionealluvione  

108 

 
 
 
 
 
UoM Code 

Name 

Link to FRMP (as reported in WISE) 

FRMP (found at link) 

ITR081 

Regionale Emilia Romagna 

http://ambiente.regione.emilia-romagna.it/suolo-bacino/sezioni/piano-di-gestione-

FRMP for ITI021, ITI01319, ITR081 

del-rischio-alluvioni/piano-gestione-del-rischio-alluvioni  

ITR091  

Regionale Toscana Costa  

Link to the Northern Apennines web site. The link is broken but the following page 
provides a link to the FRMPs of the UoMs in ITC: 

FRMP for the Toscana Costa UoM 

http://www.appenninosettentrionale.it/itc/?page_id=2010 

ITR092  

Regionale Toscana Nord  

Link to the Northern Apennines web site. The link is broken but the following page 

FRMP for the Toscana Nord UoM 

provides a link to the FRMPs of the UoMs in ITC: 
http://www.appenninosettentrionale.it/itc/?page_id=2010 

ITR093  

Regionale Toscana Ombrone  

Link to the Northern Apennines web site. The link is broken but the following page 

FRMP for the Umbrone UoM 

provides a link to the FRMPs of the UoMs in ITC: 
http://www.appenninosettentrionale.it/itc/?page_id=2010 

ITR111 (part) 

Regionale Marche (part) 

Link to the Autorità di Bacino Marche web site, which informs that information 
related to floods is available from the Marche region web site: 

http://www.regione.marche.it/Regione-Utile/Paesaggio-Territorio-Urbanistica-
Genio-Civile/Direttiva-alluvioni  

FRMP for the Marche Regional UoM 

ITD – Serchio  

ITSNP01 

Serchio 

http://www.autorita.bacinoserchio.it/pianodigestione_alluvioni  

FRMP for the Serchio UoM  

109 

 
 
UoM Code 

Name 

Link to FRMP (as reported in WISE) 

FRMP (found at link) 

ITE – Southern Apennines 

ITI023  

Sangro  

http://www.abtevere.it/node/1279  

FRMP for ITE 

ITI028  

Tronto  

This web page provides the FRMP for the ITE RBD as a whole and the FRMPs for 

And FRMPs for: the Abruzzo/Sangro 

ITN010 

Tevere  

ITR121  

Regionale Lazio  

ITR131 

Regionale Abruzzo  

ITR111 (part) 

Regionale Marche (part) 

ITF – Southern Apennines  

the UoMs that are found within ITE 

UoM, Tronto UoM, Tevere UoM, 
Lazio Regional UoM 

Link to the Autorità di Bacino Marche web site, which informs that information 
related to floods is available from the Marche region web site: 

http://www.regione.marche.it/Regione-Utile/Paesaggio-Territorio-Urbanistica-
Genio-Civile/Direttiva-alluvioni  

FRMP for the Marche Regional UoM 

ITI012  

Bradano  

http://www.autoritadibacino.basilicata.it/adb/pStralcio/pgra/pgra_7.asp  

FRMP for Basilicata (covering ITI012, 
ITI024, ITI029, ITR171) 

ITI015 

Fortore 

http://www.ildistrettoidrograficodellappenninomeridionale.it/dam_074.htm  

FRMP for Southern Apennines (ITF)  

ITI022 

Saccione 

http://www.ildistrettoidrograficodellappenninomeridionale.it/dam_074.htm  

FRMP for Southern Apennines (ITF) 

110 

 
 
UoM Code 

Name 

Link to FRMP (as reported in WISE) 

FRMP (found at link) 

ITI024 

Sinni 

http://www.autoritadibacino.basilicata.it/adb/pStralcio/pgra/pgra_7.asp  

FRMP for Basilicata (covering ITI012, 

ITI025 

Sele 

Link to a web site (www.adbcampaniasud.it) that is no longer available.  

Plan available on: 
http://www.ildistrettoidrograficodellappenninomeridionale.it/dam_006.htm 

ITI024, ITI029, ITR171) 

FRMP for Campania Sud: ITI025, 
ITR152 and 153 

ITI027 

Trigno 

http://www.ildistrettoidrograficodellappenninomeridionale.it/dam_074.htm  

FRMP for Southern Apennines (ITF)  

ITI029 

Noce  

http://www.autoritadibacino.basilicata.it/adb/pStralcio/pgra/pgra_7.asp  

FRMP for Basilicata (covering ITI012, 
ITI024, ITI029, ITR171) 

ITN005 

Liri-Garigliano  

No links reported to WISE. Plan available on: 

FRMP for the Liri-Garigliano and 

http://www.ildistrettoidrograficodellappenninomeridionale.it/dam_006.htm  

Volturno basins 

ITN011 

Volturno  

No links reported to WISE. Plan available on: 
http://www.ildistrettoidrograficodellappenninomeridionale.it/dam_006.htm  

FRMP for the Liri-Garigliano and 
Volturno basins 

ITR141 

Regionale Molise - Biferno e 

http://www.ildistrettoidrograficodellappenninomeridionale.it/dam_074.htm  

FRMP for Southern Apennines (ITF) 

minori 

ITR151 

Regionale Campania Nord 

http://www.adbcampaniacentrale2.it/piano-di-gestione-del-rischio-di-alluvione-art-

FRMP for Campania Centrale Basin, 

Occidentale 

6-d-lgs-492010/  

covering ITR151 and ITR154 

ITR152 

Regionale Destra Sele 

No links reported to WISE. Plan available on: 

FRMP for Campania Sud: ITI025, 

111 

 
 
UoM Code 

Name 

Link to FRMP (as reported in WISE) 

FRMP (found at link) 

ITR153 

Regionale Sinistra Sele 

http://www.ildistrettoidrograficodellappenninomeridionale.it/dam_006.htm 

ITR152 and 153 

ITR154 

Regionale Sarno 

http://www.adbcampaniacentrale2.it/piano-di-gestione-del-rischio-di-alluvione-art-

FRMP for Campania Centrale Basin, 

6-d-lgs-492010/  

covering ITR151 and ITR154 

ITR161I020 

Regionale Puglia e Interregionale 

http://www.adb.puglia.it/public/news.php?extend.316.2  

FRMP for the Puglia and Ofanto UoM 

Ofanto 

ITR171 

Regionale Basilicata 

http://www.autoritadibacino.basilicata.it/adb/pStralcio/pgra/pgra_7.asp  

FRMP for Basilicata (covering ITI012, 
ITI024, ITI029, ITR171) 

ITR181I016 

Regionale Calabria e 

http://www.ildistrettoidrograficodellappenninomeridionale.it/index.html  

FRMP for Southern Apennines (ITF) 

Interregionale Lao 

ITG - Sardinia 

ITR201 

Regionale Sardinia 

http://www.regione.sardegna.it/index.php?xsl=509&s=1&v=9&c=11621&tb=8374

FRMP for Sardinia UoM  

&st=13&nodesc=2&vs=1&ld=1&tb=8374&st=13&tb=8374&st=13  

ITH – Sicily  

ITR191 

Regionale Sicilia 

http://www.artasicilia.eu/old_site/web/bacini_idrografici/piano_2/relazione_genera
le.pdf  

FRMP for Sicilia UoM  

112 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex A2: Objectives in the five FRMPs assessed 

Main category: 

HUMAN HEALTH 

ENVIRONMENT 

CULTURAL HERITAGE 

ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES 

FRMP: 

Eastern Alps (ITA) 

- Protection of human health from 
direct and indirect impacts, which 
could be generated by pollution to or 
interruption of water services; 

- Protection of communities, 
avoiding adverse consequences to 
local governments, schools, hospitals 
and emergency services. 

- Protection of protected areas/water 
bodies from floods’ permanent or 
long-term consequences; 

- Preservation of archaeological and 
architectural sites, historical and 
artistic heritage, landscapes. 

- Protection from industrial 
contamination; 

- Protection from other permanent or 
long lasting environmental damages 
to biodiversity, land, wildlife, plants, 
etc.  

- Defence of properties (included 
residences); 

- Defence of infrastructure (i.e. 
telecommunications, road networks, 
electricity networks);   

- Protection of agriculture, fishery 
and forestry; 

- Protection of other economic 
activities and other sources of 
employment. 

Central Apennines 
(ITE) 

- Reduction of risk to human health 
and/or human life; 

- Reduction of risks to protected 
areas; 

- Risk reduction for the operability 
of social facilities (i.e. schools, 
hospitals, town hall, prisons, etc.) 

- Mitigation of negative effects on 
water body ecological status 
resulting from possible pollution in 
the event of floods. 

- Reduction of risks to existing 
cultural, architectural and historical 
heritage; 

- Mitigation of damages to primary 
network infrastructure (trains, 
airports, road networks, etc.); 

- Mitigation of possible damages to 
the landscaping system. 

- Mitigation of damages to the 
private and public economic system; 

- Mitigation of damages to real 
estate; 

- Mitigation of damages to systems 
for the maintenance of economic 
activities (i.e. electricity networks, 
treatment plants, etc.). 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main category: 

HUMAN HEALTH 

ENVIRONMENT 

CULTURAL HERITAGE 

ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES 

FRMP: 

Sardinia (ITR201) 

- Mitigation of risks for human 
health and/or human life; 

- Mitigation of risks for the 
operability of social facilities (i.e. 
schools, hospitals, town hall, 
prisons, etc.) 

- Protection of protected areas; 

- Mitigation of permanent or long 
lasting negative effects on water 
bodies; 

- Reduction of risks from IPPC 
(Integrated Pollution Prevention and 
Control) or diffuse sources. 

- Mitigation of possible damages to 
the landscape system; 

- Safeguarding archaeological and 
architectural sites, historical and 
artistic heritage, monuments, 
museums. 

- Mitigation of damage to network 
infrastructure (trains, airports, road 
networks, etc.); 

- Mitigation of damage to systems 
for the maintenance of economic 
activities (i.e. electricity networks, 
treatment plants, etc.); 

- Mitigation of damage to 
agricultural activities (farming, 
fishery, forestry, mining); 

- Mitigation of damage to the private 
and public economic system and 
industrial activities; 

- Mitigation of damages to real 
estate. 

Puglia/Ofanto 
(ITR161I020) 

- Reduction of risks to human health  

- Safeguarding landscape features; 

- Reduction of risks to human life; 

- Mitigation of risks to the 
operability of social facilities (i.e. 
schools, hospitals, town hall, 
prisons, etc.) 

- Reduction of risks to cultural 
heritage. 

- Achieving good status of water 
bodies; 

- Reduction of risks to transport 
facilities; 

- Reduction of the risk of 
contamination of water bodies 
(especially drinking water sources); 

- Protection of the quantity state of 
ecosystem.  

- Reduction of risks to technical 
installation; 

- Reduction of risks to agricultural 
areas. 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main category: 

HUMAN HEALTH 

ENVIRONMENT 

CULTURAL HERITAGE 

ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES 

FRMP: 

Abruzzo/Sangro 
(ITR131 and ITI023) 

- Protection of human health from 
direct and indirect impacts; 

- Protection of communities, 
avoiding negative consequences to 
the local governments, schools, 
hospitals and emergency responses. 

- Protection of protected areas and 
water bodies from permanent or 
long-term consequences of floods; 

- Preservation of archaeological and 
architectural sites, historical and 
artistic heritage, landscapes. 

- Protection from industrial 
contamination (resulting from 
floods); 

- Protection from other permanent or 
long lasting environmental damage 
to the biodiversity, land, wildlife, 
plants, etc.  

- Defence of properties (included 
residences); 

- Defence of infrastructure (i.e. 
telecommunications, road networks, 
electricity networks);   

- Protection of agriculture, fishery 
and forestry; 

- Protection of other economic 
activities and other sources of 
employment. 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures158 

No Action 

M11 

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

M21 

M22 

M23 

M24 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

M35 

M41 

M42 

M43 

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). 

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

Preparedness 

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 

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

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

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
M44 

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

Recovery & Review 

M51 

M52 

M53 

M61 

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 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)  

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

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

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

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

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

Table B2 

List of NWRMs 

Agriculture 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

A03 Crop rotation 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

F02 Maintenance of 
forest cover in headwater 
areas 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U03 Permeable 
surfaces 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

U05 Channels and 
rills 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

F08 Appropriate design 
of roads and stream 
crossings 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

F11 Urban forest parks 

A07 Low till agriculture 

A08 Green cover 

A09 Early sowing 

A10 Traditional 
terracing 

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 
features 

U06 Filter Strips 

U07 Soakaways 

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation 

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches 

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

U09 Rain Gardens 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

N12 Lake restoration 

U12 Infiltration basins 

A13 Mulching 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

118