COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Spain 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: Spain, 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) 67 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Spain 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) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 
Acronyms 

4 

Introduction  5 

Overview 

6 

Overview of the assessment .................................................................................................... 9 

Good practices ....................................................................................................................... 13 

Areas for further development .............................................................................................. 14 

Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 15 

1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment  17 

1.1. Reporting of the FRMP .................................................................................................. 17 

1.2. Assessment of the FRMP ............................................................................................... 17 

2. Integration of previously reported information 

19 

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

2.2 

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

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas ................................................... 23 

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

maps ........................................................................................................................ 24 

2.5  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration 
of previously reported information ......................................................................... 24 

3. Setting of Objectives 

25 

3.1 

3.2 

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

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................ 25 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ........................................... 26 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding ............................. 26 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives ............................................................................... 26 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ....... 26 

4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives……………………………………. 28 

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

4.2 

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

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures ............................................ 30 

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

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

1 

 
 
4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ........................................................................................... 32 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ........................................... 33 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures ................................................................... 34 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ........................................................... 34 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ....................................................................................... 34 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding .................................................................. 36 

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

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive ................................................... 38 

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

5. Consideration of climate change  41 

5.1 

Specific measures planned to address climate change ............................................... 41 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change ......... 42 

6. Cost-benefit analysis 

43 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ..................................................... 43 

7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation

44 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................ 44 

7.2 

Public information and consultation .......................................................................... 44 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders .......................................................................... 46 

7.4 

7.5 

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

Strategic Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 47 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................ 47 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

49 

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

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

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

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

Measure details: cost ............................................................................................................. 57 

Measure details: name & location ......................................................................................... 57 

Location of measures ............................................................................................................ 57 

Geographic coverage ............................................................................................................. 59 

Measure details: objectives ................................................................................................... 59 

2 

 
 
Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 59 

Category of priority ............................................................................................................... 60 

Timetable ............................................................................................................................... 62 

Measure details: authorities ................................................................................................... 62 

Measure details: progress ...................................................................................................... 64 

Measure details: other ........................................................................................................... 67 

Annex B:  Definitions of measure types  68 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) ................................................. 69 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

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

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

4 

 
 
 
Introduction 

The Floods Directive (FD) (2007/60/EC) requires each Member State  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  Spain  (ES)1.  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: due to the high number of FRMPs prepared in Spain, the assessment 
has focused on a selected set of plans, chosen to cover a broad range of methodological 
approaches  and  different  Units  of  Management  (UoMs).  The  following  FRMPs  were 
reviewed: 

o  One for a UoM managed at national level (ES080, Júcar); 
o  Four UoMs managed at regional level: ES014, Galicia; ES017, Eastern Cantabrian, 
partially  managed  by  the  Basque  Country  authorities;  ES060,  Andalusian 
Mediterranean  Basins,  managed  by  the  Andalusian  authorities;  and  ES110, 
Balearic Islands.  

2 

1   The  present  Member  State  assessment  reports  reflect  the  situation  as  reported  by  each  Member  State  to  the 
Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to FRMPs prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States  
may have altered since then. 
 Referred to as “Reporting Sheets” throughout this report. Data must be reported in a clear and consistent way by 
all Member States. The format for reporting was jointly elaborated by the Member States and the Commission as 
part of a collaborative process called the “Common Implementation Strategy”: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm  
Whereas a  key role of the Commission is to check compliance  with EU legislation, the Commission also seeks 
information to allow it to determine whether existing policies are adequate. It also requires certain information to 
create a European-wide picture to inform the public. 

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Overview 

Figure 1 

 Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts 

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)  

Spain is divided into 25 Units of Management (UoMs), which correspond to the River Basin 
Districts  (RBDs)  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD).  At  the  time  of  drafting  this 
report,  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  (FRMPs)  had  been  approved  and  reported  for  17  of 
Spain’s UoMs3, the exceptions being the UoMs for Catalonia (ES100)4 and the Canary Islands 
(ES120 to ES127): see the Table 1 below for an overview.  

3  By May 2018 the FRMP for also Catalonia, ES100 had been approved, bringing the total to 18 UoMs. 
4  The FRMP for ES100 (Catalonia) was approved by the Spanish Government on the 9th of March 2018. Following 
that,  a  PDF  and  an  XML  file  was  reported  to  the  European  Commission.  This  was,  however,  too  late  to  be 
included in this report, and thus the assessment in this report does not consider that UoM.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The approach for preparing the FRMPs is similar in each UoM, based on work developed by 
the  National  Ministry  for  Agriculture.  However,  certain  differences  can  be  found  when 
comparing the national approach with the FRMPs developed by regional competent authorities 
(such  as  Galicia,  Andalusia,  the  Basque  Country  and  the  Balearic  Islands  which  have  been 
assessed for this report). The regional FRMPs also differ in the degree of detail provided. 

In Spain the FRMPs were adopted by Royal Decree: 

  The  FRMPs  for  ES010,  20,  30,  40,  50,  70,  80,  91,  150  and  160  –  by  Royal  Decree 

18/2016 on 15 January 2016 

  ES014, RD 19/2016, 15 January 2016 
  ES017 and 18, RD 20/2016, 15 January 2016 
  ES060, 63 and 64, RD 21/2016, 15 January 2016 
  ES110, RD 159/2016, on 15 April 2016 

The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in Spain, including the UoM code, the name, 
and  the  number  of  APSFRs  reported5.  It  also  shows  if  the  UoM  reported  all  documents 
required  to  European  Environment  Agency’s  (EEA)  WISE6  –  the  FRMP  as  a  PDF  and  the 
reporting sheet as an XML.  

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Spain 

UoM 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

Name 

Number of APSFRs 

XML 
reported 

PDF 
Reported 

MINHO-SIL 

GALICIAN COAST 

EASTERN 
CANTABRIAN 
WESTERN 
CANTABRIAN 
DOURO 

TAGUS 

GUADIANA 

GUADALQUIVIR 

ANDALUSIAN 
MEDITERRANEAN 
GUADALETE-BARBATE 
BASINS 
TIONTO-ODIEL-
PEIDRAS 
SEGURA 

JUCAR 

EBRO 

24 

207 

73 

110 

26 

33 

45 

109 

204 

42 

34 

35 

58 

46 

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 

5    Since  the  reporting  of  APSFRs  (October  2014),  there  have  been  changes  in  Spain’s  APSFRs,  which  will  be 
reflected when Spain reports their PFRA/APSFRs in the 2nd cycle of the Floods Directive. Spain has provided the 
following updated numbers of APSFRs: ES014, 210; ES040, 43; ES050, 110; ES060, 200; ES063, 44; ES064, 35; 
ES070, 44; ES100, 42; ES124, 45; ES160, 5; Total, 1342 

6  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 

 
 
 
                                                           
UoM 

ES100 

ES110 

ES120 

ES122 

ES123 

ES124 

ES125 

ES126 

ES127 

ES150 

ES160 

TOTAL 

Name 

Number of APSFRs 

INTERNAL BASINS OF 
CATALONIA 
BALEARIC ISLANDS 

GRAN CANARIA 

FUERTEVENTURA 

LANZAROTE 

TENERIFE 

LA PALMA 

LA GOMERA 

EL HIERRO 

CEUTA 

MEILILLA 

29 

43 

47 

34 

37 

33 

12 

7 

7 

7 

4 

1 306 

XML 
reported 
Yes 2 
Yes 

PDF 
Reported 
Yes 2 
Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 
18 2 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 
152 2 

The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web page: 

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/agua/temas/gestion-de-los-riesgos-de-inundacion/planes-
gestion-riesgos-inundacion/Enlace_documentacion_PGRI.aspx   

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Overview of the assessment 

Table 2 below gives an overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMP. 
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 

The FRMPs assessed include a list of 
established objectives 

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of potential 
adverse consequences  

Strong evidence  

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

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

Some evidence  

...to non-structural initiatives   Strong evidence  

The objectives of the FRMPs aim to reduce the 
vulnerability and risk to flooding; however, 
without further specification. 

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

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

...human health  

Some evidence  

...economic activity  

Some evidence  

These aspects are specified in the definition of 
objectives in the FRMPs, at an overall level 
(aim of the FRMPs), but not in detail within 
what the Spanish FRMPs denominate as the 
“general objectives”. UoM-specific objectives 
have only been defined in one UoM out of the 
five assessed. 

These aspects are specified in the definition of 
objectives in the FRMPs at an overall level 
(aim of the FRMPs), but not in detail within 
the general objectives, where economic activity 
is mentioned twice  

9 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...environment  

Some evidence  

...cultural heritage  

Some evidence  

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence  

...prioritised  

Strong evidence  

These aspects are specified in the definition of 
objectives in the FRMPs, and one of the 
general objectives includes the contribution to 
the achievement of the WFD objectives. 
However, the environment is only mentioned 
once in the text of the other general objectives  

Cultural heritage is not explicitly specified in 
the definition of objectives in the FRMPs, 
though mentioned in the higher level, that of 
the aim of FRMPs  

The FRMPs include a set of measures, 
including those that have been started in the 
past and others that are new. 

Measures have been prioritised according to 
four criteria, namely: 1. a ranking of the 
objectives according to their relevance, 
developed in some of the UoMs explicitly 
(Galicia, ES014) after technical and 
stakeholder meetings 2. a cost-benefit 
assessment of the measures (which is not 
further described) 3. a comparison of the 
geographical extent of the measure 
implementation, prioritising those measures 
that cover a wider geographical range 4. 
beneficial links with the implementation of 
related EU legislation, in particular the Water 
Framework Directive  

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

...costs & benefits  

Some evidence  

The FRMPs refer to cost benefit assessment as 
a criterion for the establishment of priorities for 
the selection of measures. However, they do 
not report further details nor provide evidence 
of such assessments, neither in general nor 
specifically for the measures. The FRMP 
Eastern Cantabrian, ES017, also reports that no 
transboundary measures are planned and thus 
no cost-benefit assessment of such measures 
has been undertaken.  

10 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

...flood conveyance  

Strong evidence  

…water retention  

Some evidence  

...environmental objectives 
of the WFD  

Some evidence  

...spatial planning/land use   Some evidence  

...nature conservation  

Some evidence  

11 

The flood extent is described for each APSFR 
in the corresponding fiche. According to the 
reported information, the information on the 
flood extent has been used to define the 
measures. 

In the APSFR online viewer, conveyance 
routes are reflected. No reference to 
conveyance routes is provided in the FRMP 
summary of the APSFRs for Galicia, ES014. In 
the FRMPs for the Eastern Cantabrian 
(ES017), Andalusian Mediterranean Basins 
(ES060) and Júcar (ES080), conveyance routes 
were not explicitly mentioned as an element of 
the APSFRs at the PFRA phase, but reference 
is made to river beds, which can be considered 
as one, albeit obvious, conveyance route.  

Natural Water Retention Measures – e.g. for 
river restoration – are included in the FRMPs 
assessed, though detailed description and target 
indicator values are often not available; 
moreover, few NWRMs have been included so 
far in the budgets for the implementation of the 
measures of the FRMPs. 

The FRMPs refer to the necessary coordination 
between the FRMPs and RBMPs, and the 
obligation to foster the achievement of the 
WFD objectives, which often leads to the 
selection of sustainable solutions, like NWRM 
including sustainable urban drainage systems 
(SuDS). In detail, the overlap between Flood 
Risk Areas and water bodies has been assessed, 
and in particular a summary of their status and 
objectives of each water body included.  

All five FRMPs assessed include references to 
land use, as well as measures to improve 
coordination and to align - in particular urban, 
but also forestry - land use with the risks 
identified, preventing further damages.  

A limited number of measures refer to either 
biodiversity (among the FRMPs assessed, the 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

No evidence  

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Some evidence  

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Some evidence  

Coordination ensured with 
WFD  

Some evidence  

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Some evidence  

Balearic Islands, ES110, includes measures to 
protect coastal dunes); nature conservation 
(Júcar, ES080 includes maintenance of natural 
reefs); or environmental improvement (Eastern 
Cantabrian, ES017).  

All FRMPs assessed make a brief reference 
that they shall take into consideration 
navigation and port infrastructure. However, 
there is no specific measure targeting these  

The FRMPs refer to climate change scenarios 
of IPCC and other bodies, some in specific 
chapters on the topic. These FRMPs show clear 
trends for the overall decrease in precipitation, 
but unclear or different trends related to daily 
maxima of rainfall. Given these uncertainties, 
all FRMPs include a measure to develop 
further studies on the effects of climate change 
on flood risk, as current information is judged 
as insufficient. They also include measures to 
improve weather forecasting  

The one FRMP assessed that is part of an 
international UoM (Eastern Cantabrian, 
ES017) mentions the 2006 Toulouse 
Agreement between Spain and France on water 
management but does not provide details on 
coordination, despite the fact that a joint 
APSFR has been identified.  

The FRMPs refer to the necessity of 
coordination between the FRMPs and RBMPs, 
and the obligation to foster the achievement of 
the WFD objectives  

During the drafting process of FRMPs, 
working groups were established with public 
institutions for better coordination, and 
information days were held in some UoMs.  

The FRMPs do not include a summary of the 
effect of the consultation.  

12 

 
 
Good practices 

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

Table 3 

Good practices in the Spanish FRMPs 

Topic area 

Good practices identified 

Integration of previously 
reported information in 
the FRMPs. 

Two of the five FRMPs assessed (Galicia, ES014, and Eastern 
Cantabrian, ES017) included explicit information about changes in 
APSFRs and FHRMs.  

Setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk.  

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

All five FRMPs assessed included printed maps of the distribution of 
flood risk areas within the UoM as well as internet links to maps of all 
APSFRs. The Eastern Cantabrian FRMP (ES017) presents maps for 
each of the APSFRs in the FRMP. 

The objectives of the FRMPs were discussed with stakeholders before 
their establishment.  

In one of the five FRMPs assessed (Júcar, ES080), more detailed 
“specific” objectives associate the “general” objectives of the FRMPs 
with the APSFRs, and provide further detail for some of them (e.g. 
“Improve predictive capacity in flood and flood situations at the Elche 
dam and review its flood management protocols”). 

The FRMPs and the reporting sheets refer to coordination activities 
with national authorities (e.g. the Ministries for Public Works related to 
infrastructure construction and drainage, and for Economy and 
Competitiveness related to research and innovation), including for their 
specific measures in the Plans. 

Almost all measures are specific and measurable. All five of the 
FRMPs assessed include a clear and explicit description of what 
measures are trying to achieve, where, how and by when. 

The geographic reference is either UoM, APSFR or other, more 
specific (e.g. list of weirs to be removed in Júcar, ES080): for measures 
with a specific location, the description usually is detailed, such as 
providing a figure in km or other specifics. This level of geographic 
detail can be considered as a good practice.  

Natural Water Retention Measures – e.g. for river restoration - are 
included in the five FRMPs assessed, though detailed descriptions and 
target indicator values are often not available.   

For the five FRMPs assessed, progress in the implementation of 
planned measures is tracked via monitoring indicators, including 
quantitative baselines and targets; however, information is not 
provided for all the indicators. 

Climate change 

All five FRMPs assessed include a measure to develop further studies 
on the effects of climate change on flood risk.   

13 

 
 
Topic area 

Good practices identified 

Use of cost-benefit 
analysis in the FRMPs 
assessed 

Public participation.  

Flood risk governance.  

Reference to the National Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation is 
made in four of the five FRMPs assessed. 

Cost benefit analysis is reported to be used as a criterion for the 
prioritisation of measures. 

Technical coordination meetings with authorities, prior to the release of 
the draft FRMPs for consultation were held in at least four of the five 
UoMs whose FRMPs were assessed. 

The FRMPs include extensive information in their Annexes describing 
in detail the texts of comments received during consultation and the 
responses of the administrations. 

The FRMPs include extensive information in the Annexes describing 
in detail the text of comments received and the response texts of the 
administrations. 

Strategic Environmental Assessments were prepared for all five 
FRMPs assessed. In some cases, a joint Strategic Environmental 
Assessment has been undertaken for the RBMPs and FRMPs (Eastern 
Cantabrian, ES017; Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060; Júcar, 
ES080). 

Areas for further development 

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

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Spanish FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas for further development identified 

Integration of previously 
reported information in 
the FRMPs. 

Setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk.  

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

There is limited information in the FRMPs on how the FHRMs have 
been used to prioritise measures. 

For one FRMPs assessed (Júcar, ES080), no internet link for APSFR 
maps is provided.   

The objectives are not measurable and do not specify targets to be 
achieved. 

The decision-making process for prioritization of the objectives is not 
described in detail in the FRMPs, and therefore the transparency of this 
process is not fully guaranteed (no evidence in the FRMPs).  

The FRMPs assessed do not consistently describe in detail either the 
measures, or the cost elements which are considered for the FRMP 
budget. 

Nature based solutions have only been considered very marginally in 
the FRMPs.  

It is not clear how measures will contribute to the objectives, nor by 
how much. The FRMPs include almost only effort (output) indicators 

14 

 
 
Topic area 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Use of cost-benefit 
analysis in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Public participation.  

International issues in 
flood risk management.  

Recommendations 

Areas for further development identified 
and few impact indicators, these usually without target values for 2021; 
therefore, the progress in achieving the objectives will be difficult to 
measure. 

Due to the lack and contradictions of previously existing information 
and studies, no clear likely impact of climate change has been 
identified for daily maxima of rainfalls. In consequence, no further 
consideration of climate change impacts has been included in the 
FRMPs and the establishment of measures: measures only develop 
further and more conclusive studies on this topic. 

Coordination between FRMPs and the national climate change 
adaptation strategy appears not to be systematic. 

The cost-benefit assessment for measures is not documented in the 
FRMPs, and such assessments are expected to be applied only for 
structural measures and during the implementation phase of FRMPs.7 
The number of comments received during the consultation has been 
quite low in general. This might be due to low interest or 
understanding from public, or as a sign of approval regarding the 
contents of the FRMP.  

For the one FRMP assessed that is part of an international UoM 
(Eastern Cantabrian, ES017), no maps have been presented for the 
whole international UoM (ES017-FRF), including joint flood risk areas 
in France and Spain. 

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

  The  process  of  prioritization  of  objectives  should  be  better  explained  and  documented, 
e.g.  explaining  which  institutions  and  stakeholders  have  taken  part  in  it,  and  which 
reasons have been argued to decide on high or low priorities for the different objectives. 
  The  achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  FRMPs  should  be  measurable  to  the  extent 

possible to be able to assess progress.  

  For  measures,  indicators  of  progress  should  be  developed  and  linked  to  measurable 

objectives. 

7  Spain  subsequently  noted  that  it  was  considered  unfeasible  to  carry  out  a  cost-benefit  assessment  of  all  the 
measures; this will only be carried out for the structural measures during the implementation phase of the FRMPs 
(which has already been completed in the case of the Eastern Cantabrian FRMP, ES017). The first step is to create 
a  guide  with the relevant  methodology and the second  will consist of the cost-benefit assessment study and the 
prioritization of any interventions. 

15 

 
 
                                                           
  A  stronger  emphasis  should  be  placed  upon  the  introduction  of  nature  based  solutions 

(including NWRM). 

  The  methodology  for  assessing  measures  in  terms  of  costs  and  benefits  as  well  as  its 

application and results of this analysis should be presented. 

  The prioritization of the measures should be more transparent and better documented.  
  Climate  change  should  be  considered,  including  better  integration  of  and  more 

systematic references to the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. 

16 

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

1.1. Reporting of the FRMP 

Spain has reported 17 out of 25 FRMPs. The eight missing FRMPs8 refer to ES100 (Catalonia) 
and the seven UoMs of the Canary Islands (ES120 to 127). 

Spain did not make use of Article 13.3 of the Floods Directive, which allows Member States to 
make use of previous flood risk management plans (provided their content is equivalent to the 

requirements set out in the Directive). 

Concerning the geographic coverage of the FRMPs, there is  one FRMP covering each entire 

UoM.  In  addition,  other  documents  have  been  reported  for  some  of  the  UoMs  as  annexes 
and/or background documents. 

1.2. Assessment of the FRMP 

In Spain  some river basin  districts  (RBDs)/UoMs  are managed at  a national  level  and others 
are managed at regional level (i.e. at the Autonomous Community level).  

The nationally managed UoMs assessed are: 

Table 5 

Nationally managed UoMs assessed 

UoM code 

ES017 

ES080 

UoM Name 

EASTERN CANTABRIAN 

JUCAR 

The regionally managed UoMs assessed are: 

Table 6 

Regionally managed UoMs assessed 

UoM code 

ES014 

ES060 

ES110 

UoM Name 

GALICIAN COAST 

ANDALUSIAN MEDITERRANEAN BASINS 

BALEARIC ISLANDS 

8  By May 2018 the FRMP for Catalonia, ES100 had also been approved, reducing the pending FRMPs to seven. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
However, the regional Basque Country authority has taken an active role in the development of 
the  FRMP  for  the  Eastern  Cantabrian,  ES017,  which  therefore  has  a  somewhat  different 

content than other FRMPs of inter-regional (and thus nationally managed) UoMs. 

Nationally managed basins/UoMs are expected to take a consistent approach: for this reason, 
one national FRMP significantly affected by floods (Júcar, ES080) and four UoMs managed at 

regional  level  (ES014  for  Galicia;  Eastern  Cantabrian,  ES017  for  the  Basque  country; 
Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060 for Andalusia; and ES110 for the Balearic  Islands) 

were chosen for the assessment.  

As neither Catalonia (ES100) nor the Canary Islands (ES120 to ES127) had reported FRMPs at 
the time of the assessment, it was assumed that all methodological approaches reported at the 

time by Spain were covered by this assessment.  

18 

 
 
 
 
2. Integration of previously reported information  

2.1 Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

The  conclusions  of  the  PRFA  are  presented  in  the  FRMP  for  all  five  FRMPs  assessed.  This 
includes  a  summary  map  showing  areas  of  potential  significant  flood  risk  (APSFRs).  All 

FRMPs assessed also had a textual description which includes tables listing the APSFRs, the 
methodology employed and the results of previous steps. The information varies in detail and 
is shorter for Galicia (ES014) than for the other UoMs assessed9.  

Links to maps of the APSFRs have been provided as URLs in the FRMPs for three UoMs  – 

Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins,  ES060  and  Balearic  Islands,  ES110  and  Galicia,  ES014 
(however,  in  an  Annex)  –  but  not  for  the  Eastern  Cantabrian,  ES017  or  the  Júcar,  ES080, 

although for both of these overview maps are included in the FRMP.   

No  reference  to  conveyance  routes  is  included  in  the  FRMP  summary  of  the  APSFRs  for 
Galicia,  ES014.  In  the  FRMPs  for  Eastern  Cantabrian  (ES017),  Andalusian  Mediterranean 

Basins  (ES060)  and  Júcar  (ES080),  conveyance  routes  are  not  explicitly  mentioned  as  an 
element of the APSPFR10 but reference is made to river beds, which can be considered as one, 
albeit obvious, conveyance route11.  

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 
Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

The only international  UoM analysed in  detail  is  Eastern Cantabrian, ES017, which includes 
catchments shared with France. Its only shared APSFR is ES017-GIP-BID-01 between France 

and  Spain.  However,  the  map  included  in  FRMP  for  this  UoM  is  unclear,  and  it  does  not 
appear that a shared APSFR and map have been elaborated.  

Annex  5  of  the  FRMP  for  the  Eastern  Cantabrian  UoM  indicates  that  there  is  an  overall 
coordination  agreement  (the  2006  Toulouse  agreement)  and  that  information  exchange  and 
cooperation have taken place, but no specific description of the exchanges is provided12. 

9  FRMPs, main document. 
10  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  during  the  development  process  of  the  PFRA,  there  was  not  enough  available 

information to be able to define the conveyance routes (floodway). This was carried out for the risk maps. 

11  FRMPs chapters 3 ES017: pages 26 and 28, ES060 page: 24, ES080 page: 23. 
12   FRMP ES017 Annex 5. 

19 

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

There  is  no  specific  information  available  in  the  reporting  sheets  (across  all  17  FRMPs 
reported), regarding the  ways which the PFRA  was used in  developing  the flood hazard and 

flood risk (FHR) maps.  

Across the five FRMPs assessed, two FRMPs (Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060, and 
Balearic  Islands,  ES110)  did  not  provide  specific  information.  For  the  three  other  FRMPs 
assessed, information is provided, but not always with sufficient detail to understand the links:  

  The FRMP for Galicia, ES014, explains that the preparation of FHR maps was based on 

the previous PFRA and it assessed the identified areas with more detail.  

  The FRMP for Eastern Cantabrian, ES017, refers to the two steps but does not describe 

the links in detail.  

 

In the Júcar FRMP, ES080, a clear reference is provided for FHR maps being based on 
the  PFRA,  but  no  conclusions  are  included  in  the  FRMP  regarding  the  evolution  of 
APSFRs in between the two assessment steps13.  

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

The flood hazard and flood risk maps have been presented in one of the five FRMPs assessed 
(Eastern  Cantabrian,  ES017).  This  FRMP  includes  maps  for  each  APSFR,  where  the  coastal 
and fluvial flood risks are reflected; the methodology informs furthermore that separate studies 
have  been  undertaken  for  floods  from  both  sources  and  the  APSFR  is  represented  as  the 
combined area of both individual sources. In the Galicia FRMP (ES014), a table of fluvial and 
coastal  APSFRs  is  presented,  but  no  maps.  The  FRMPs  for  the  Andalusian  Mediterranean 
Basins (ES060), Júcar (ES080), and Balearic Islands (ES110) do not include APSFR-specific 
maps in the FRMP itself or the corresponding annexes/appendixes.  

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

  FRMP  for  Galicia,  ES014:  internet  links  for  maps  are  provided  in  Annex  1,  page  34, 
which refers to http://www.cmati.xunta.es/ide-dhgc/ and the National flood risk mapping 
system http://sig.magrama.es/snczi/   

  FRMP 

for  Eastern  Cantabrian,  ES01714:  maps  of 

the  APSFR 

are 

at 

http://www.uragentzia.euskadi.net/u81-0003/es/contenidos/informacion/mapas-de-
peligrosidad-y-riesgo-cantabrico-oriental-en-el-ambito-de-las-cuencas-internas-de-la-

13  FRMP ES014 page: 33, FRMP ES017 page: 33. No information is provided for ES060 nor ES110 FRMP, ES080 

page: 31. 

14  FRMP ES017, page 35. 

20 

 
 
                                                           
capv/demarcacion-cantabrico-oriental/es_docu/demarcacion-cantabrico-oriental.html 
http://www.chcantabrico.es/index.php/es/actuaciones/dph/evaluacion-y-gestion-de-los-
riesgos-de-inundacion/mapas-de-peligrosidad-y-riesgo/dh-del-cantabrico-oriental  

  FRMP  for  Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins,  ES06015:  reference  to  the  map  viewer  is 

provided http://www.cma.junta-andalucia.es/medioambiente/site/portalweb/        

  FRMP 

for 

Júcar,  ES08016: 

general 

link 

to 

the  National 

System 

(http://sig.magrama.es/snczi/)   

  Balearic  Islands, ES11017:  Links  are not  provided to  a map, but to  fiches of the fluvial 

FRAs: 
http://www.caib.es/sacmicrofront/archivopub.do?ctrl=MCRST259ZI158962&id=158962   
And of the coastal FRAs: 
http://www.caib.es/sacmicrofront/archivopub.do?ctrl=MCRST259ZI158964&id=158964  
http://www.caib.es/sacmicrofront/archivopub.do?ctrl=MCRST259ZI158965&id=158965    

Floods from  pluvial,  groundwater  and artificial  water bearing infrastructure sources have not 
been  identified  in  the  UoMs  assessed;  The  FRMPs  do  not  include  references  to  these  flood 
sources. None of these sources had been identified in the previous FHRM phase18. 

2.2.1 

 Maps for shared flood risk areas 

Flood hazard and flood risk maps have not been prepared for flood risk areas shared with other 

Member States, in the one transboundary river basin/UoM assessed. As noted above, the only 
shared APSFR is ES017-GIP-BID-01 between France and Spain. However, the map included 

in the FRMP for the Eastern Cantabrian, ES017 (Annex 1), is unclear, and it does not appear 
that  a  shared  map  has  been  elaborated19.  This  FRMP  does  refers  to  information  exchange, 
without being specific on the moment or content of such exchanges. Neither the FRMP’s main 
nor its Annex 5 (on information  exchange) refers to  active transboundary cooperation on the 

preparation  of  the  maps.  The  reporting  sheets  (for  the  Eastern  Cantabrian,  ES017,  and  the 
Adour-Garonne UoM in France, FRF) and the FRMP for the Eastern Cantabrian, ES017 (main 

document), do not include information on this topic. 

15  FRMP ES060, page 33. 
16  FRMP ES080, page 28. 
17  FRMP ES110, page 20. 
18  FRMPs and annexes: ES014 Annex 1 ES017 Annex 1 page: 28. 
19  FRMP ES017, page 331 (pdf page number). 

21 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

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

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

activities, assets)  

  FHRMs are used as a tool in the public participation process  
  Measure types and locations have been defined based on the FHRM  

The  approach  varies,  however,  across  the  FRMPs  assessed  and  in  general  limited  detail  has 
been provided on how the FHRMs have been used to develop FRMPs. In general, all FRMPs 
refer in a standard text to the relevance of the FHRM exercise and its results for the definition 
of  the  FRMP.  In  three  out  of  five  assessed  FRMPs  (Galicia,  ES014;  Eastern  Cantabrian, 
ES017; and Balearic Islands, ES110), the FHRMs have been used to prioritise the locations for 
flood risk measures. The other two assessed FRMPs do not provide conclusions on the use of 
the FHRMs for the development of FRMPs. For example20: 

  The Galicia (ES014) FRMP refers to an analysis carried out in the frame of the FRMP 
drafting on which measures would be applicable to each of the APSFRs and the FRMP 
page 35 refers to the maps being submitted to public consultation21.  

  The Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) FRMP refers to the FHRMs as a basis for considering 
measures  with  criteria  of  benefit  and  sustainability22.  In  the  chapter  referring  to  the 
FHRMs, but not its conclusion, the FRMP states briefly that the results of the mapping 
exercise help to prioritize measures both within one flood risk areas and between flood 
risk areas23.  

  The FRMP for the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060, only provides a list of the 

APSFRs without defining other type of conclusions24.  

  The Júcar (ES080) FRMP does not provide conclusions from the FHRM exercise25.  
  The FRMP for the Balearic Islands, ES110: Chapter 4.5 includes a summary description 
of the assessment, providing overall data on the population or economy affected, etc. and 
states 
the 
implementation; but does not specify how the results influence objectives or measures in 

the  measures  and  priorities  for 

the  exercise  has  determined 

that 

20  The  assessment  has  not  tracked  back  possible  references  to  the  FHRM  from  the  latter  chapters  of  the  FRMPs, 

such as on objectives or measures; and has been limited to the chapter on FHRM. 

21  FRMP ES014, page 44. 
22  FRMP ES017, page 56. 
23  FRMP ES017, page 33. 
24  FRMP ES060, page 39 and following. 
25  FRMP ES080, page 40 and following. 

22 

 
 
                                                           
detail26. The FRAs with the highest risks have been prioritised for the implementation of 
measures27.  

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

Any changes in the identification of Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk since December 
2011  should  be  reflected  in  the  FRMP.  Out  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  three  (Andalusian 
Mediterranean  Basins,  ES060;  Júcar,  ES080;  and  Balearic  Islands,  ES110)  do  not  provide 
details regarding possible changes to the APSFRs due to increased information, knowledge and 
understanding.  However,  in  two  FRMPs  such  references  have  been  found  and  they  cite 
changes  in  the  number  of  flood  risk  areas  (in  particular  for  floods  from  coastal  sources: 
Galicia,  ES014)  and  the  maps  combining  flood  risks  from  different  sources  (Eastern 
Cantabrian, ES017). In detail: 

  The  Galicia  (ES014)  FRMP  refers  to  the  fact  that  the  number  of  preliminary  coastal 
APSFRs  increased  from  39  to  42,  due  to  a  better  simulation  of  flood  risks,  however, 
according to the FRMP, 14 of these do not present real flood risks28.  

  The Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) FRMP refers to changes in the APSFRs due to coastal 
sources, where new areas have been included and others discarded due to the additional 
information  available29.  Furthermore,  for  APSFRs  with  combined  sources,  these  have 
been reflected in a map as a “combined area”30.  

  The  Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins  (ES060)  FRMP  does  not  provide  any  insights 

concerning possible changes31.  

  The  Júcar  (ES080)  FRMP:  Chapter  4  describes  the  methodology  and  results  of  the 
different  risk factors considered (including surface area, depth,  velocity, response time, 
sediment  transport,  obstacles  in  conveyance  route)  but  does  not  inform  about  possible 
changes due to improved knowledge base.  

  The Balearic Islands (ES110) FRMP does not provide any insights concerning possible 

changes 

No information was found regarding in the FRMPs whether any changes were made regarding 
the preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps since December 2013 (the Directive’s 
deadline for the FHRMs).  

26  FRMP ES110, page 30. 
27  FRMP ES110, page 31. 
28  FRMP ES014, page 33. 
29  FRMP ES017, page 48. 
30  FRMP ES017, page 47. 
31  FRMP ES060, page 32 and following. 

23 

 
 
                                                           
2.4  Areas  for  further  development  in  the  earlier  assessment  of  the  flood 

hazard and risk maps 

The FHRM assessment32 identified the following substantive areas for further development for 
Spain: 

  Several FHRMs were reported to be still under development. 
 

It  was  not  clear  whether  Emergency  Actions  plans  for  dams  already  correspond  to  the 
requirements  of  the  Directive,  if  not  whether  Spain  considered  adapting  those  plans  to 
the Directive’s requirements. 

None  of  these  areas  for  further  development  are  explicitly  addressed  within  the  FRMPs 
assessed  or  the  reporting  in  the  time  period  between  publication  of  the  FHRMs  and  the 
assessment of the FRMPs. Nonetheless, the following information has been found: 

  For the FRMPs assessed, the FHRMs had been completed  – however, information was 
not  available  regarding  the  FRMPs  not  reported:  Catalonia  (ES100)  and  the  Canary 
Islands (ES120 to ES127). 

  Emergency Action Plans are mentioned as measures of the  FRMPs, coordinated by the 

corresponding competent authorities33. 

2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following good practices were identified: 

 

 

Inclusion  in  two  FRMPs  (Galicia,  ES014,  and  Eastern  Cantabrian,  ES017)  of  explicit 
information about changes in the APSFRs and FHRMs.  

Inclusion  of  printed  maps  of  the  distribution  of  APSFRs  within  the  UoM  as  well  as 
internet  links to  maps of all APSFRs.  The  Eastern Cantabrian FRMP (ES017) presents 
maps for each of the APSFRs in the FRMP. 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  For one FRMP assessed (Júcar, ES080), no internet links to AFPSFR maps are provided. 
  There  is  limited  detail  in  the  FRMPs  on  how  the  FHRMs  have  been  used  for  the 

development of FRMPs.  

32  European Commission, Assessment of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps  – Member State Report: ES – Spain, 

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

33  Emergency Action Plans are mentioned as measures of the FRMPs, coordinated by the corresponding competent 

authorities. Reporting sheets. 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
3   Setting of Objectives 

3.1  Focus of objectives 

The eight general objectives of all FRMPs in Spain are:  

 

Increase perception of flood risk and self-protection strategies by the population, social 
and economic agents;  

Improve knowledge for adequate flood risk management;  

Improve administrative coordination among all actors involved in risk management;  

 
 
 
  Contribute to improving spatial planning and management of exposure in flood areas;  
  Achieve  a  reduction,  as  far  as  possible,  of  the  risk  by  reducing  the  danger  to  human 

Improve predictive capacity in flood and flood situations;  

health, economic activities, cultural heritage and the environment in flood areas;  

Improve resilience and reduce the vulnerability of elements located in flood areas;  

 
  Contribute to the improvement of the water body status, and coordination with the WFD.  

These objectives apply to the five FRMPs assessed. Consequently, in the FRMPs assessed34: 

  The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods;  
  The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding35;  
  The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented;  
  The objectives refer to non-structural measures36.  

3.2  Specific and measurable objectives 

In  Spain,  objectives  are  neither  specific  nor  measurable.  The  “general”  objectives  for  the 
FRMPs  are  not  specific  on  what  they  are  trying  to  achieve  (not  quantitative  or  measurable), 

where they are to be achieved, and by when they are expected to be achieved. There is some 
information available how they are to be achieved.  

In  all  FRMPs  assessed,  indicators  are  provided  associated  to  measures,  but  not  associated 
directly to the objectives (note there is not a direct and explicit relationship between objectives 

and  measures,  as  the  measures  contribute  usually  to  several  objectives).  Almost  exclusively, 

34  These categories are included in Article 7 of the Floods Directive. 
35  The  assessment  adopts  the  generally  accepted  definition  of  risk  as  a  product  of  consequence  times  likelihood, 

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

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

land use planning, economic instruments and insurance. 

25 

 
 
                                                           
they  are  effort  (output)  indicators  (e.g.  number  of  so-called  “management  agreements” 
undertaken to carry jointly out certain measures), and not impact indicators. The indicators are 

defined for 2015 (baseline) and 2021 (targets). Furthermore, such targets are not defined for all 
measures (e.g. Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060, FRMP): many of the indicators listed 

(in the template provided to the UoM authorities by the National authorities) “do not apply” or 
are “not defined”. In some UoMs (so far out of the assessed UoMs, only developed for Júcar, 

ES080), more detailed “specific” objectives associate the general objectives with the APSFRs, 
and  provide  further  detail  for  some  of  them  (e.g.  “Improve  predictive  capacity  in  flood  and 

flood situations at the Elche dam and review its flood management protocols”).  

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

In the FRMPs assessed, objectives do not provide further specification of the type of adverse 

consequences that will be reduced. As mentioned previously, the objectives are rather general 
and  do  not  specify  the  targets  to  be  achieved.  None  of  the  many  indicators  established  for 

measures focus on impacts, but rather on efforts. 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding  

The objectives aim to reduce the vulnerability and risk to flooding; however, without further 
specification. 

3.5  Process for setting the objectives  

Each  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  sets  out  priorities  by  ranking  the  eight  general  objectives 
determined nationwide (see above) for the specific circumstances of the UoM. The FRMPs and 
the reporting sheets also refer to coordination activities between different national authorities 
(as the Ministry for Public Works, related to infrastructure construction and drainage, and the 
Ministry  for  Economy  and  Competitiveness,  related  to  research  and  innovation).  All  FRMPs 
have undergone a consultation process. 

3.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding  setting 

objectives 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The  objectives  of  the  FRMPs  were  coordinated  at  national  or  regional  level  and 

discussed with stakeholders before their establishment  

 

In  one  of  the  UoMs  assessed  (Júcar,  ES080),  more  detailed  “specific”  objectives 
associate the “general” objectives of the FRMPs with the APSFRs, and provide further 

26 

 
 
detail for some of them (e.g. “Improve predictive capacity in flood and flood situations at 
the Elche dam and review its flood management protocols”). 

  The FRMPs and the reporting also refer to coordination activities between the different 
national  authorities  (e.g.  the  Ministries  for  Public  Works  related  to  infrastructure 
construction  and  drainage,  and  Economy  and  Competitiveness  related  to  research  and 
innovation), including their specific measures in the Plans. 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  The objectives are not measurable and do not specify the targets to be achieved. 
  The decision-making process for prioritization of the objectives is not described in detail 

in the FRMPs.  

27 

 
 
 
 
4   Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

For  all UoMs that have  been reported (17  UoMs37), including  the  five  UoMs  whose  FRMPs 
have  been  assessed,  the  total  number  of  individual  measures  is  192,  and  the  number  of 
aggregated38  measures  is  1  171.  In  consequence,  the  total  number  of  measures  is  1  363  (the 
FRMPs  do  not  explain  how  individual  and  aggregated  measures  are  defined).  The  average 
number of measures per UoM is 80, with a range between 49 and 156 measures per UoM39.  

The  17  FRMPs  reported  each  contain  most  of  the  measure  types40  defined.  However, 
prevention  measures  of  types  2241  are  only  present  in  some  of  the  UoMs.  Moreover,  the 
measure types 3542, and 5243 are not included in any of the FRMPs of the Spanish UoMs.  

For all 17 UoMs reported, in terms of the number of measures associated, Protection measures 
are  in  the  majority,  with  404  measures  (30  %).  These  are  followed  by  Preparedness  (358 
measures  or  26  %),  Prevention  (327  measures  or  24  %)  and  Recovery  and  review  measures 
(274 measures or 20 %).  

Please see Annex A for tables and charts on measures for this and subsequent questions in this 
section. 

37  All Spanish UoMs, excluding ES100 and ES120 to 127, as these were not reported at the time of the assessment. 
38  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. 

39  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. 

40  See Annex B for the list of all measure aspects and measure types. 
41  Measure  to  remove  receptors  from  flood  prone  areas,  or  to  relocate  receptors  to  areas  of  lower  probability  of 
flooding and/or of lower hazard) and 23 (Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the 
event of a flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc. 

42  Other  measure  to  enhance  protection  against  flooding,  which  may  include  flood  defence  asset  maintenance 

programmes or policies. 

43  Environmental recovery, clean-up and restoration activities. 

28 

 
 
                                                           
4.1  Cost of measures 

Table 7 

Overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMP 

UoM 

ES080 

ES110 

ES017 

ES014 

ES060 

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

74.5 m 

5.42 m 

137.17 m 

67.86 m 

- 

Source: Reporting sheets and FRMP 

For the five FRMPs assessed, the expected costs or budget for implementing the measures are 
very  different  for  the  UoMs,  as  shown  above.  Its  distribution  amongst  the  categories  of 
Prevention,  Protection,  Preparedness  and  Recovery  is  also  very  different,  with  Prevention 
ranging  from  22-78  %,  Protection  from  14-62  %,  Preparedness  from  5-19  %  and  Recovery 
from 0-16 % of the total FRMP budget for the UoM.  

For  the  FRMPs  assessed,  some  present  an  overall  cost  forecast  or  budget,  whilst  the 
Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins  FRMP  (ES060)  only  presents  these  for  the  separate 
measures and does not provide an overview.  

  The Júcar (ES080) FRMP44 describes the following budget distribution: Prevention 31%, 

Protection 34 %, Preparedness 19 %, and Recovery 16 % 

  The Balearic  Islands ES110 FRMP45 includes the following proportional distribution of 
the total budget: Prevention 78,25 %, Protection 14,37 %, and Preparedness 7,38 %. No 
budget  foreseen  for  Recovery.  According  to  the  Galicia  (ES014)  FRMP46,  the 
distribution  is  Prevention  22,95  %,  Protection  62,43  %,  Preparedness  5,78  %  and 
Recovery 8,84 %.  

  The FRMP for Galicia (ES014)47 states that part of the budget included in the FRMP will 
not necessarily be executed. This is due to the fact that flood investments are risk-related, 
and might not necessarily occur  

  The Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) FRMP includes a different presentation of the budget to 
the other UoMs assessed, with no overall figure specified, but figures (in million EUR) 
for  the  first  two  planning  cycles  (2015-2021,  2021-2027)  referring  to  the  four  areas: 
Prevention  first:  16.59M  EUR,  second:  9.32M  EUR,  Protection  first:  98.73,  second: 

44  FRMP ES080, page 242. 
45  FRMP ES110, page 87. 
46  FRMP ES014, page 146. 
47  FRMP ES014, page 134. 

29 

 
 
                                                           
269.5, Preparedness  first: 11.05, second:  0. Recovery and evaluation: first  10.8,second: 
0.  

 

In  the  FRMP  for  the  Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins,  ES060,  no  budget  has  been 
identified overall, and figures are only available measure by measure48. 

The FRMPs assessed do not describe in detail either the measures, or the cost elements which 
are considered for the FRMP’s budget49. 

4.2  Funding of measures 

All  five  FRMPs  assessed  explain  that  the  majority  of  the  budget  will  be  covered  by  the 
national and regional competent and cooperating authorities, as well as from local authorities, 

most of these co-funded by EU budgets (structural and cohesion funds, agricultural and fishery 
funds,  social  funds,  according  to  the  Partnership  Agreement  and  its  priorities).  Some  of  the 

measures  do  not  require  “additional  budget”,  as  they  are  considered  core  activities  of  the 
Spanish administration already. Private sources might come from activities under the corporate 

social responsibility (CSR) activities of private foundations.  

Table 8 

Funding of measures 

Distribution of costs among those groups affected by 
flooding  

Use of public budget (national level)  

Use of public budget (regional level)  

Use of public budget (local level)  

Private investment  

EU funds (generic)  

EU Structural funds  

EU Solidarity Fund  

EU Cohesion funds  

EU CAP funds  

International funds  
European Social Fund 

ES080 

ES017 

ES014 

ES110 

ES060 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 
Source: FRMPs 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 
All FRMPs assessed include a clear and explicit description of the measures with regard to:  

  What they are trying to achieve, 

48  FRMP ES060, page 103. 
49 Spain subsequently informed that this information is contained in annex 2 of the FRMPs. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Where they are to be achieved, 
  How they are to be achieved, and 
  By when they are expected to be achieved. 

In general, the FRMPs include information on the measures which refer to their location (it can 
be the whole UoM or other more detailed locations), the timeframe for the implementation, the 
budget,  the  responsible  authority  and  indicators  for  management.  However,  not  all  the 
information  is  provided  for  all  measures;  the  gaps  relate  particularly  to  the  budget  (for 
measures  considered  as  those  which  are  already  being  carried  out  by  the  authorities  in  the 
frame  of  flood-related  policies).  In  addition,  the  descriptions  of  the  measures  remain  rather 
brief  for  example  “Development  and  implementation  of  the  river  conservation  programme” 
(Júcar, ES080) or for “agreements with third parties” (Balearic Islands, ES110). In the Spanish 
FRMPs assessed, measures are presented with a standard template table, with key information 
such  as 
(start,  end),  budget, 
location/geographic  scope.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  information  in  the  tables  is 
rather limited. 

responsible  administration, 

implementation 

time 

for 

The  measures  indicate  one  of  three  levels  of  location:  National,  RBD/UoM  and  APSFR  (or 
more detailed than a single water body). 

Table 9 

Location of measures  

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk area  

Water body level  

More detailed than water body 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: Reporting sheets 

Almost  all  measures  are  specific  and  measurable.  As  stated  before,  for  measures  with  a 
detailed  location,  the  description  usually  is  more  detailed  in  terms  of  providing  a  figure  in 
kilometres, etc. The geographic reference is either UoM, APSFR or more specific (e.g. list of 
weirs  to  be  removed  in  Júcar,  ES080).  There  are  no  differences  between  the  assessed  UoMs 
regarding the level of specificity of the measures50.  

50  FRMPs, e.g. Júcar, ES080 Annex 2 page 9. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
4.4  Measures and objectives 

It is not clear how measures will contribute to the achievement of objectives, nor clear by how 

much they will contribute. It is also not clear whether the objectives will be achieved when all 
measures are completed. The measures have associated indicators that monitor the effort, but 

not  the  impact.  Additionally,  the  (general)  objectives  established  in  the  FRMPs  are  not 
measurable (see section 3 above). For these reasons, it is not possible to assess progress against 

objectives.  

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

For all 17 UoMs reported prior to 2017, with 1 363 measures reported, 857 apply to the whole 
UoM,  and  503  to  an  APSFR.  Three  measures  target  more  specific  locations.  Whilst  the 

majority of measures addressing Prevention, Preparedness and Recovery target the UoM, the 
majority of measures addressing Protection are foreseen at the APSFR level. For further data, 
see Tables A6 and A7 in Annex A. 

While Spain reported on the geographic scale of measures, it did not report information on the 
geographic coverage of the expected impact of measures. 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

The  vast  majority  of  measures  are  categorised  as  either  of  very  high  or  critical  priority, 
especially for preparedness and prevention measures. Protection measures are the lowest in the 
scoring  of  the  number  of  critical  measures,  whilst  there  are  most  critical  measures  for 
Prevention,  followed  by  Preparedness  and  Recovery.  The  only  measures  categorised  as  low 
(one measure) or moderate (five measures) are protection measures. It is worth noting that the 
Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins,  ES060,  has  the  highest  proportion  of  critical  priority 
measures of all UoMs. For further data on all 17 UoMs, please see Tables 8 and 9 in Annex A. 

The  five  FRMPs  assessed  do  not  include  summaries  on  the  distribution  of  the  number  of 
measures  according  to  the  priorities.  The  summary  of  the  Programme  of  Measures  in  the 
FRMPs  refers  to  the  main  priorities  in  text  form  or  table  form  for  the  Andalusian 
Mediterranean  Basins  (ES060)  FRMP51;  and  Eastern  Cantabrian  (ES017)  FRMP  (referring 
only to Structural Measures)52; Júcar (ES080) FRMP53; Balearic Islands (ES110) FRMP54; the 

51  ES060 FRMP, page 97 and following. 
52  FRMP ES017, page 150. 
53  FRMP ES080, page 236. 
54  FRMP ES110, page 74. 

32 

 
 
                                                           
Galicia (ES014) FRMP55, indicating the priority measures. These summaries do not, however, 
include the full priority classification for critical, very high, high, moderate and low priorities. 

According to the FRMPs assessed, the prioritisation of measures has followed four criteria:  

1)  a ranking of the objectives according to their relevance, developed in some of the UoMs 

explicitly (e.g. Galicia, ES014) after technical and stakeholder meetings,  

2)  a cost-benefit assessment of the measures (which is not further described),  
3)  a  comparison  of  the  geographical  extent  of  the  measure  implementation,  prioritising 

those measures that cover a wider geographical range,  

4)  beneficial links with the implementation of related EU legislation, in particular the Water 

Framework Directive. 

All the FRMPs assessed and the reporting summaries include the same standard text, referring 
to the fact that similarity of the prioritisation results under criteria 1 and 2 are similar for the 
UoMs. No details are provided on the discussions at the meetings for fixing criteria 1, nor the 
cost benefit assessment of the measures. 

For the five FRMPs assessed, the timetable for the implementation of the measures is provided 
within the FRMPs, and specifies the start and end month and year, in the first planning cycle. 
Most  of  the  measures  will  be  implemented  in  the  2015-2021  period,  with  a  target  to  be 
achieved in 2021. In general, the majority of measures refers to six  years of implementation; 
this indication is  however not  based on a detailed assessment. There does not  seem  to  be  an 
immediately clear relationship between the timetable and the priorities. 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

For  all  17  FRMPs  reported,  Spain  reports  that  national  authorities  (Ministry  of  Agriculture, 
Food and the Environment, Ministry for Public Works) are responsible for the implementation 

of  the  majority  of  measures  (760  measures),  regional  authorities  are  responsible  for  the 
implementation  of  337  measures,  local/municipal  authorities  are  responsible  for  the 

implementation  of  37  measures,  and  other  bodies  for  the  implementation  of  229  measures. 
Note that the UoM authorities are either national or regional (see the overview for details).  

Across the four measure aspects (Prevention, Protection, Preparedness, Recovery), the national 

authorities  are  in  all  cases  responsible  for  the  highest  number  of  measures.  However,  local 
authorities  play  a  more  significant  role  dealing  with  prevention  measures  compared  to  other 

types  of  measures,  and  other  bodies  (such  as  research  institutes,  e.g.  as  identified  in  Eastern 
Cantabrian, ES017) for measures  for preparedness. This observation relates to the number of 

55  FRMP ES014, page 128 and following. 

33 

 
 
                                                           
measures  rather  than  the  budget.  For  further  information,  please  see  Tables  A10  and  A11  of 
Annex A. 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

For  all  17  FRMPs  reported,  the  vast  majority  of  the  measures  are  on-going  for  all  aspects, 
either as process or construction. Regarding protection measures, approximately 25 % of them 
has not yet started, and also a significant proportion (approx. 10 %) of recovery measures has 
not  yet started. No measures have been completed so far. For further information, please see 
Tables A12 and A13 of Annex A. 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

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

been  implemented:  Spain  has  reported  this  information  for  all  FRMPs  assessed.  All  FRMPs 
refer to the RBMPs under the WFD, and in the case of Balearic Islands, ES110, also to coastal 

and  maritime  protection  (referring  to  the  Spanish  Coastal  Law).  Several  protection  measures 
refer to civil protection measures, e.g. Galicia, ES014, and Eastern Cantabrian, ES017. 

For  Spain,  159  different  reported  measures  are  reported  under  other  Community  Acts.  Note 

however, that the legislation reported includes National or Regional acts for example covering 
urban  land  use  management,  forestry  and  road  infrastructure,  without  providing  any 

corresponding  references  to  the  EU  act.  It  also  refers  to  Horizon  2020,  under  the  research 
policy of the EU.  

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

With  regard  to  spatial  planning/land  use  measures,  the  following  types  of  measures  are 
included in the five FRMPs assessed:  

a)  Administrative  coordination  for  construction  in  the  floodplains,  according  to  the 

compulsory reports by UoM authorities for urban development plans;  

b)  Adoption  of  regional  and  urban  regulation  of  land  use  limitations  in  the  “areas  of 
preferential flows” (a possible synonym for “conveyance routes”) and floodplains;  

c)  Adoption of protocols and agreements between authorities;  
d)  Coordination of flood risk information in the map viewers;  
e)  Adaptation of urban planning;  
f)  Development  of technical  construction guidance documents  to  reduce vulnerability and 
increase resilience against floods in buildings, agricultural holdings and networks;  

g)  Training and awareness raising campaigns on the measures addressing vulnerability. 

34 

 
 
The  framework  has  evolved  since  2000.  According  to  Art.11  of  the  Water  Law,  the  UoM 
authorities  transfer  information  on  floodplains  and  flood  risk  to  municipalities  for 
consideration  in  urban  planning.  Further  regulation  and  limitations  can  be  established  by  the 
national  and  regional  governments.  Art.  15  of  Royal  Decree  903/2010  (Evaluation  and 
management  of  flood  risk)  establishes  that  urban  planning  has  to  respect  the  regulatory 
elements  of  FRMPs  and  shall  recognise  the  rural  character  of  flood  risk  areas.  Annex  A 
includes the adaptation of urban planning to FRMPs in the list of measures. 

Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in some, but not all, of the 
five  FRMPs  assessed.  Natural  water  retention  measures  are  mentioned  explicitly  in  the 
summary reporting of the FRMPs (although no detailed explanation is  given). The following 
specific measures have been identified in the FRMPs assessed, with only one NWRM (flood 
mitigation area in Júcar, ES080) explicitly planned:  

  The Galicia (ES014)  FRMP56  establishes within the indicators that in  2015 no NWRM 
was  implemented  in  the  UoM,  and  that  the  target  indicator  for  2022  is  still  to  be 
determined.  

  The  Eastern  Cantabrian  (ES017)  FRMP  includes  in  Annex  2  information  on  NWRM 
including  some  schema  on  possible  types  for  bio-retention  (unclear  which  NWRM 
category). However, the FRMP page 200 indicates that the target indicator for NWRM is 
“not  applicable”,  thus  it  remains  uncertain  if  such  measures  will  be  implemented.  The 
relevance of floodplain conservation has been assessed. 

  The  FRMP  for  the  Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins  (ES060)  explains  that  a  2  m€ 
budget  is  foreseen  for  the  first  planning  cycle  for  river  restoration  projects  including 
NWRM  (category  Nature,  hydrology-forestry  and  agro-hydrology)57.  However,  the 
indicator table on NWRM is blank regarding the status and target.  

  The  Júcar  FRMP  (ES080)  Annex  2  includes  a  measure  “Área  de  laminación  en  el 
Barranco  Hondo”  (Flood  mitigation  area  in  the  Barranco  Hondo  creek;  unclear  which 
NWRM category)  

  The  Balearic  Islands  (ES110)  FRMP58  includes  the  preparation  of  river  restoration 
projects  including  aspects  of  NWRM  (category  N),  however,  no  specific  reference  has 
been found to underpin that such measures will be implemented. 

Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. All five FRMPs assessed refer in a 
generic  manner  to  biodiversity,  e.g.  the  EU  2020  Biodiversity  Strategy,  by  using  a  common 
text. At a more measure-specific level, the following references have been found:  

56  FRMP ES014, page 155. 
57  FRMP ES060, page 108 and page 121. 
58  FRMP ES110, page 79. 

35 

 
 
                                                           
  The FRMP for Galicia (ES014) refers to biodiversity in the measure description for river 

restoration measures.  

  The  FRMP  for  Eastern  Cantabria  (ES017)  refers  to  Natura  2000  in  the  measure 
description  of  river  restoration  measures,  e.g.  referring  to  the  competent  authorities. 
Biodiversity is not referred to.  

  The FRMP for the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060) refers to biodiversity in the 
frame of river restoration projects, as well as to Natura 2000 and the related regulatory 
references.  

  The Júcar FRMP (ES080) - no reference has been found to biodiversity of Natura 2000.  
  The FRMP for the Balearic Islands (ES110) neither refers to biodiversity nor to Natura 

2000 when describing the measures59. 

All  five  FRMPs  assessed  make  a  brief  reference  that  they  shall  take  into  consideration 
navigation  and  port  infrastructure.  However,  there  are  no  measures  specifically  targeting 
these.  

No reference has been found in the five FRMPs assessed to dredging as a measure to increase 
the river channel capacity60. It should however be noted that the RBMP for the Guadalquivir 
RBD  (ES050)61  includes  a  justification  of  the  Guadalquivir  estuary  dredging  as  a  WFD 
Art.4(7)  exemption,  due  to  its  benefits  for  flood  risk  reduction,  listing  this  aspect  as  an 
important one for justifying overriding public interest. This measure is not listed in the FRMP 
but only in the RBMP62 (which does not further refer to the FRMP and its data). 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The  role  of  insurance  policies  is  discussed  in  all  five  FRPMs  assessed,  with  regard  to  the 
recovery from flooding, preparedness/resilience to flood or other issues. According to the data 

reported  in  the  reporting  sheets,  insurance  policies  are  included  as  recovery  measures,  for 
people and goods, and in particular the agricultural sector. This applies to all UoMs by means 

of  the  National  Joint  Insurance  Compensation  Agreement  (Consorcio  de  Compensación  de 
Seguros) and the National Entity for Agrarian Insurance (Entidad Estatal de Seguro Agrarios 
(ENESA)). 

59  ES014 FRMP, Annex 2, page 49; ES017 FRMP, Annex 2, page 50; ES060 FRMP Annexes; ES080 FRMP Annex 

2; ES110 FRMP 

60  FRMPs and their Annexes 2 (measures). 
61  RBMP ES050, Annex 8, page 49. 
62   Spain subsequently noted that this measure aims to facilitate navigation. 

36 

 
 
                                                           
With regard to the type of insurance available or to be developed for potential flooding areas, 
the  information  is  briefly  explained,  but  refers  only  to  agrarian,  agricultural  and  livestock 

subscription modules. 

With  regard  to  the  flood  insurance  for  properties  in  all  flood  risk  areas,  and  in  particular  in 
high flood risk areas, no information has been found on this specific detail in the five FRMPs 

assessed.  Although  “people  and  goods”  are  mentioned,  there  is  only  an  explicit  reference  to 
“agricultural holdings” in terms of properties. No mention has been found to which type of risk 

areas the insurance would apply. No information was found whether insurance is conditional 
on  making  at  risk  properties  (domestic,  industrial)  as  flood  resilient  as  possible,  nor  if 

environmental  liability  insurance  cover  the  restoration  costs  arising  from  flooding  of 
potentially polluting sites and installations. 

There is no detailed information about the costs and benefits of the measures included in the 

FRMPs assessed or their annexes, with regard to whether ecosystem services are considered in 
estimating restoration costs in cases where potentially polluting sites and installations may be 
flooded.   

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMPs 

Progress in the implementation of planned measures is tracked via monitoring indicators: this 
is detailed in a specific chapter in all five FRMPs assessed. For each measure, the FRMP has a 

space to  enter  a numeric baseline, for the level  before implementation  of  the measure, and  a 
target/expected  value  upon  its  completion  (e.g.  kilometres  of  rivers  or  coastline,  number  of 

protocols,  number  of  guidance  documents,  of  regional  regulation  considering  floods, 
percentage  of  dams  with  management  plans).  Planned  dates  for  the  completion  of  each 

measure are specified with month and year. However, not all indicators are fully filled in, and 
for  some  the  FRMPs  indicate  that  the  target  “needs  to  be  determined”  (e.g.  number  of 

NWRM). There are no differences between the FRMPs assessed. 

A baseline has been established against which progress will be monitored and assessed in all 

five  FRMPs  assessed.  The  baseline  is  often  quantitative  -  for  example  stating  how  many 
municipal reports have already been emitted in 2015 or how many kilometres of coastline have 

been mapped regarding their flood risk - but it also refers to status descriptions like “regulation 
drafted  pending  approval”,  “project  pending  approval”,  “pending  start”  and  “in  drafting 

process,  e.g.  when  referring  to  legislation  or  protocols”.  In  the  FRMP  for  Galicia  (ES014) 
several baselines are “to be determined”, which will hamper the assessment of progress. 

37 

 
 
4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 

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

Table 10 
second River Basin Management Plan of the WFD  

Coordination  of  the  development  of  the  FRMP  with  the  development  of  the 

ES014, ES017, 
ES060, ES110 

ES080 

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 FRMPs63  

The RBMP’s PoMs include win-win measures in terms of 
achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, 
drought management and NWRMs a 

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

Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have 
been included  

Consistent and compliant application of WFD Article 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 systems64, such as the 
construction of wetland and porous pavements, have been 
considered to reduce urban flooding and also to contribute to 
the achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives  

Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

63   There  is  evidence  of  some  no-regret  measures  (of  a  coordination,  cooperation  type)  in  the  FRMP,  but  was  not 

assessed as strong enough 

64   Spain informed subsequently that a basic guide for the implementation of these measures is under preparation at 

the national level. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The FRMPs assessed refer to the necessity of coordination between the FRMPs and RBMPs, 
and the obligation to foster the achievement of the WFD objectives, which often leads to the 

selection  of  sustainable  solutions,  like  NWRM  including  sustainable  urban  drainage  systems 
(SuDS) (note however that few NWRMs have been included so far in the budgets).  

In  detail,  the  overlap  between  Flood  Risk  Areas  and  water  bodies  has  been  assessed,  and  in 

particular a summary of their status and objectives for each of the concerned water bodies. In 
three  UoMs,  out  of  the  five  whose  FRMPs  were  assessed,  a  joint  Strategic  Environmental 

Assessment has been undertaken for the RBMPs and FRMPs (e.g. Eastern Cantabrian, ES017; 
Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060; Júcar, ES080).  

The  authorities  responsible  for  developing  FRMP  and  RBMP  are  the  same  for  all  UoMs 

assessed,  so  this  coordination  shall  be  ensured  within  the  authorities.  Coordination  with  the 
environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD is done by listing of the water bodies and their 

status  and  objectives  in  the  FRMPs,  and  by  considering  the  contribution  as  criteria  for  the 
prioritisation of measures. 

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  Almost all measures are specific and measurable. All five of the FRMPs assessed include 
a clear and explicit description of what measures are trying to achieve, where, how and 
by when.  

  The  geographic  reference  is  either  UoM,  APSFR  or  other,  more  specific  (e.g.  list  of 
weirs  to  be  removed  in  Júcar,  ES080):  for  measures  with  a  specific  location,  the 
description usually is detailed, such as providing a figure in km or other specifics. This 
level of geographic detail can be considered as a good practice.  

  Natural  Water Retention  Measures  – e.g. for river restoration  - are included in  the five 
FRMPs assessed, though the detailed description and target indicator values are often not 
available. 

  For  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  progress  in  the  implementation  of  planned  measures  is 
tracked via monitoring indicators, including quantitative baselines and targets; however, 
information is not provided for all the indicators. 

The following areas for further development were identified:  

 

It  is  not  clear  how  measures  will  contribute  to  the  objectives,  nor  clear  by  how  much. 
The  FRMPs  include  almost  exclusively  effort  (output)  indicators  only  a  few  impact 

39 

 
 
indicators,  these  usually  without  establishing  target  values  for  2021;  therefore,  the 
progress  in  achieving  the  objectives  will  be  difficult  to  measure.  It  is  also  not  clear 
whether the objectives will be achieved, when all measures are completed. 

  The FRMPs assessed do not describe in detail either the measures, or the cost elements 

which are considered for the FRMP budget. 

  While NWRMs are mentioned in the summary reporting of the FRMPs, no explanation is 
given.  There  are  some  references  to  NWRMs  (and  one  measure  in  Júcar,  ES080 
described under good practices), and the necessity of coordination between FRMPs and 
RBMPs  is  indicated  as  a  reason  for  the  selection  of  sustainable  solutions.  In  practice, 
however, NWRMs have only been considered relatively very marginally in the FRMP.  

40 

 
 
 
 
5.  Consideration of climate change 

The five FRMPs assessed refer to climate change scenarios of IPCC and other bodies. These 
show  clear  trends  for  the  overall  decrease  in  precipitation,  but  unclear  or  different  trends 
related to daily maxima of rainfall. Given these uncertainties, all five FRMPs assessed include 
a measure to develop further studies on the effects of climate change on flood risk, as current 
information is judged as insufficient.  In general,  these “improvements” or “forward steps” of 
knowledge  are  scheduled  for  2021  (FRMPs  for  Galicia,  ES014;  Andalusian  Mediterranean 
Basins,  ES060;  Balearic  Islands,  ES110),  for  “December  2021”  (Júcar,  ES080),  or  not 
specified. They also include measures to improve weather forecasting65.  

However, it should be noted that the expected effects of climate change have not been clearly 
established  in  the  FRMPs,  due  to  the  lack  of  (or  contradiction  among)  previously  existing 
studies. For this reason, no other measures than those for knowledge improvement have been 
included in the FRMPs.  

There is reference to the national Climate Change Adaption Strategy in some but not all five 
FRMPs assessed. These FRMPs mention studies on climate change, and the Spanish Office for 
Climate  Change  as  an  involved  authority.  Specifically,  the  FRMPs  for  Galicia  (ES014), 
Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins  (ES060),  Júcar  (ES080)  and  Balearic  Islands  (ES110) 
mention explicitly the National Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation, as a possible strategy 
to contribute to in synergy without further details66. 

The timeframes for the climate change scenarios have not yet been considered. There is also no 
information  available  in  the  reporting  sheets  on  reference  to  a  shift  in  the  occurrence  of 
extreme events  and changes in  numerical  recurrence times. No information  was  found in  the 
reporting  sheets  or  the  FRMPs  with  regard  to  whether  the  main  sources  of  flooding  are 
expected to change under the long term climate change scenarios.  

5.1 

Specific measures planned to address climate change 

With regard to measures to reduce pollution risk in flood prone zones, climate change is only 

mentioned  explicitly  in  the  FRMPs  for  measures  regarding  studies.  This  applies  to  all  five 
FRMPs assessed.  

Climate  change  is  not  mentioned  in  the  description  of  non-structural  measures,  including 

NWRMs, in the FRMPs assessed. No reference to climate change is found in the description of 
measures related to land use/spatial planning in the FRMPs assessed. No reference to climate 

65  FRMPs ES080 Annex 2 page 16, ES014 page 117. ES110 page 96. ES060 page 106 
66  FRMPs ES014 page 130, ES060 page 98 and ES080 page 237 ES110 page 75 

41 

 
 
                                                           
change is  found in the description  of measures using economic instruments, according to the 
FRMPs  assessed  and  the  reporting  sheets.  No  consideration  of  climate  change  is  included  in 

the measure descriptions of structural measures, according to the FRMPs assessed. 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate 

change 

The following good practices were identified: 

  All five FRMPs assessed include a measure to develop further studies on the effects of 

climate change on flood risk.   

  Reference  to  the  National  Strategy  for  Climate  Change  Adaptation  in  four  of  the  five 

FRMPs assessed.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Due  to  the  lack  and  contradictions  of  previously  existing  information  and  studies,  no 
clear  likely  impact  of  climate  change  has  been  identified.  In  consequence,  no  further 
consideration  of  climate  change  impacts  was  included  in  the  FRMPs  and  the 
establishment of measures. 

  Coordination between FRMPs and the national climate change adaptation strategy is not 

systematic. 

42 

 
 
 
 
6.  Cost-benefit analysis 

The five FRMPs assessed refer to cost benefit as a criterion for the establishment of priorities 

for the selection of measures. However, they do not report further details nor provide evidence 
of such assessments, neither in general nor specifically for the measures.  

It is unclear from the FRMPs assessed for which types of measures cost-benefit analysis has 

been  used,  and  no  information  was  found  in  the  reporting  sheets  or  the  FMRPs  assessed 
indicating whether the method used multi-benefits. 

The FRMP for Eastern Cantabrian, ES017, reports that no transboundary measures are planned 
and  thus  no  cost-benefit  assessment  of  measures  with  transnational  effects  has  been 

undertaken, according to the reporting sheets. 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following good practice was identified: 

  Cost  benefit  analysis  is  reported  to  be  used  as  a  criterion  for  the  prioritisation  of 

measures.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The  cost-benefit  assessment  for  measures  is  not  documented  in  the  FRMPs,  and  such 
assessments  are  expected  to  be  applied  only  for  structural  measures  and  during  the 
implementation phase of FRMPs.67 

67  Spain  subsequently  noted  that  it  was  considered  unfeasible  to  carry  out  a  cost-benefit  assessment  of  all  the 
measures; this will only be carried out for the structural measures during the implementation phase of the FRMPs 
(which has already been completed in the case of the Eastern Cantabrian FRMP, ES017). The first step is to create 
a  guide  with the relevant  methodology and the second  will consist of the cost-benefit assessment study and the 
prioritization of any interventions. 

43 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
7.  Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1  Competent authorities 

Based  on  the  FRMPs  and  the  information  provided  in  the  reporting  sheets,  the  Competent 
Authorities and the Units of Management identified for the Floods Directive have not changed 
recently. No new documents on the matter have been submitted to the European Commission 
since 2010. 
7.2 
The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the five UoMs 
assessed  concerning  the  draft  FRMPs.  Information  on  how  the  consultation  was  actually 

Public information and consultation 

carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section: 

Table 11 

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

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking  

Printed material  
Direct mailing 68 
Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

ES014 

ES017 

ES060 

ES080 

ES110 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

For all five RBMPs assessed, information was provided via the Internet:  

  The  Eastern  Cantabrian,  ES017  FRMP  states  that  the  website  was  used,  and  two 
workshops were held during the consultation, and includes a list of the stakeholders that 
were invited to attend the meetings.  

  The Júcar, ES080 FRMP reports on information days, workshops and expert meetings as 
well as factsheets in the preparatory steps of FD implementation; however, it is not clear 
if this activity refers to the consultation of the FRMP.  

  Balearic Islands, ES110 FRMP does not provide details on the consultation process69. 

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

68  Spain subsequently informed that in order to boost the Public Consultation of and the Active Participation in the 
ES014  FRMP,  work  was  carried  out  with  all  those  included  in  the  Galician  water  authorities'  Register  of 
interested parties. 

69  ES017 FRMP Annex 4 Chapter 3.2 ES060 FRMP Annex 3 page 2 ES080 FRMP Annex 3 and reporting sheets 

ES110 FRMP Annex 3 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 12 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet  

Via digital social networking 

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

Postal written comments 

ES014 

ES017 

ES060 

ES080 

ES110 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

For all five FRMPs assessed, consultation was reported as being carried out via written text to 
the competent authority70. For four of the five FRMPs consultation was carried out via Internet 
as well71:   

  The  FRMP  for  Galicia  (ES014)  states  that  in  the  implementation  phase  of  the  plan, 
information days, workshops and expert meetings as well as factsheets will be organised 
to  stimulate  the  FRMP  implementation;  and  four  information  meetings  were  held  in 
November 2017 (after the adoption of the Plans). There are no such  reported activities 
for the consultation phase of the draft FRMP.  

  The  Eastern  Cantabrian  (ES017)  FRMP  informs  that  website  was  used,  and  two 
workshops being held during the consultation, and includes a list of the stakeholders that 
were invited to attend the meetings.  

  The  Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins  (ES060)  FRMP  reports  that  there  was  a  written 

consultation and submission of comments by email.  

  The Júcar (ES080) FRMP reports that consultation was made in written form. 
  The  Balearic  Islands  (ES110)  FRMP  does  not  provide  details  on  the  consultation 

process. 

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

Table 13 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  

Direct mailing (post)  

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

70  Spain subsequently informed that several national bodies bringing together stakeholders provided written reports 
on  all  the  FRMPs.  These  included:  the  National  Water  Council,  with  representatives  from  all  industries  and 
interest  groups  related  to  water;  and  the  National  Council  for  Civil  Protection,  with  representatives  from  Civil 
Protection authorities in all the Autonomous Communities and the Military Unit for Emergencies. 

71  Spain subsequently informed that this was the case also for the fifth FRMP, Galicia (ES014).  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Paper copies distributed at exhibitions  

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

Paper copies at the main office of the competent authority 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

For all five FRMPs assessed, the documents were provided at the main office of the competent 

authority,  in  physical  form  (printed),  and  via  internet  (website  of  the  competent  authority), 
according to the FRMPs. 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders 

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

Table 14 
FRMPs assessed 

Groups  of  stakeholders  actively  involved  in  the  development  of  the  five 

All UoMs assessed 

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)72 

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  

Academia / Research Institutions  

Meteorological Institute 

Climate Change Office 

Geological Institute 

Agrarian Insurance Body 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

72 Spain subsequently informed that NGOs and the groups of stakeholders in the table are represented in the National 
Water  Council  and  in  the  National  Civil  Protection  Council,  both  organisms  were  consulted  in  the  process  of 
preparing the FRMPs 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Source: FRMP 

In general, during the drafting process of FRMPs, technical working groups were established 
for  coordination  with  the  institutions  listed  in  the  table  above.  It  should  be  noted  that  this 

description  is  a  standard  text,  which,  for  example,  was  also  adopted  by  Balearic  Islands, 
ES110, led by a regional UoM authority.  

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

Table 15 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders 

ES014 

ES017 

ES060 

ES080 

ES110 

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory groups  

Involvement in drafting  

Workshops and technical meetings 

Formation of alliances  

Information days 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

Specific  mechanisms  for  the  active  involvement  of  stakeholders  have  been  reported  for  the 
Eastern  Cantabrian  (ES017)  and  Júcar  (ES080)  FRMPs,  namely  workshops,  technical 

meetings, and information days.  

7.4  Effects of consultation 

The FRMPs assessed include extensive information in the Annexes describing in detail the text 

of comments received and the response texts of the administrations. However, the information 
is very detailed, and aggregation is not practical. 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

All five FRMPs assessed have undergone an SEA procedure. In some cases, a joint Strategic 
Environmental Assessment  was undertaken  for the RBMPs and  FRMPs (Eastern Cantabrian, 
ES017; Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060; and Júcar, ES080)73.  

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practice was identified:  

73  FRMPs Chapter on SEA evaluation. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  SEAs  have  been  carried  out  for  all  the  FRMPs.  In  some  cases,  a  joint  Strategic 
Environmental  Assessment  has  been  undertaken  for  the  RBMPs  and  FRMPs  (Eastern 
Cantabrian, ES017; Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060; Júcar, ES080). 

  The FRMPs include extensive information in the Annexes describing in detail the texts 
of comments received during consultation and the responses of the administrations. 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The number of comments received during the consultation has been low in general. The 
reasons should be investigated to potentially adjust the approach for the second cycle. 

48 

 
 
 
 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

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

Background & method 

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

  Measures overview – Tabulates the number of measures for each UoM; 
  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; 
  Measures details: name & location – Location & geographic coverage; 
  Measure details: authorities – Name of responsible authority & level of responsibility; 
  Measure details: objectives – Objectives, Category of priority & Timetable; 
  Measure details: progress – Progress of implementation & Progress description; 
  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts.  

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive)74, not 
all fields are mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields.  

Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers  – for example, 
progress  is  measured  via  the  categories  set  out  in  the  Reporting  Guidance.  This  means  that 
producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort.  For many fields, however, a 
free  data  format  was  used.  For  some  Member  States,  this  resulted  in  thousands  of  different 
answers, or answers given in the national language.  

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

  A  first  filter  is  applied  to  identify  how  many  different  answers  were  given.  If  a  high 
number of different  answers are  given, Member States assessors were asked to  refer to 
the  raw  data  when  conducting  the  assessment,  and  this  Annex  does  not  reflect  these 
observations. 

 

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

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

49 

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

  Measures  where  obvious  categories  cannot  be  defined  based  on  other  available 
information  (as  in  the  example  on  the  name  of  the  Responsible  Authority,  above),  are 
categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The following table75 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’. 

Types of measures used in reporting 

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 

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

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

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
List of Annex A tables and figures 

 Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, 

_Toc521939338 
Table A1  Number of measures reported in the reporting sheets ........................................... 52 
Table A2  Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM, including duplicates .. 
 ............................................................................................................................... 52 
Table A3  Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM ............................... 53 
Table A4 
including duplicates ................................................................................................................. 54 
Table A5  Location of implementation by measure aspect .................................................... 57 
Table A6  Location of implementation by UoM .................................................................... 58 
Table A7  Category of priority by measure aspect ................................................................. 60 
Table A8  Category of priority by UoM ................................................................................. 60 
Table A9  Level of responsibility by measure aspect ............................................................. 62 
Table A10  Level of responsibility by UoM ............................................................................. 63 
Table A11  Progress of implementation by measure aspect ..................................................... 64 
Table A12  Progress of implementation by UoM ..................................................................... 65 

Figure A1  Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ............ 56 
Figure A2  Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect .............. 56 
Figure A3  Visualisation of Table A6: Location by measure aspect ....................................... 58 
Figure A4  Visualisation of Table A7: Location by UoM ....................................................... 59 
Figure A5  Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by measure aspect ..................... 60 
Figure A6  Visualisation of Table A9: Category of priority by UoM ..................................... 61 
Figure A7  Visualisation of Table A10: Level of responsibility by measure aspect ............... 62 
Figure A8  Visualisation of Table A11: Level of responsibility by UoM ............................... 63 
Figure A9  Visualisation of Table A12: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ....... 65 
Figure A10  Visualisation of Table A13: Progress of implementation by UoM ................... 66 

51 

 
 
 
 
Measures overview 

Table A1 

Number of measures reported in the reporting sheets 

Number of individual measures 

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

Number of aggregated measures  

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

Total number of measures  

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

Range of number of measures between UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Average number of measures across UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 
(Min-Max) 

192 

192 

1 171 

1 171 

1 363 

1 363 

49 - 156 

80 

Table A2 

Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM, including duplicates 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

M21 

M24 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

M41 

M42  M43 

M51 

M53 

Other 

Grand 
Total 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

6 

4 

2 

1 

4 

5 

27 

8 

2 

20 

22 

19 

1 

12 

2 

1 

7 

1 

1 

2 

1 

4 

52 

6 

4 

25 

22 

5 

5 

28 

8 

12 

2 

3 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

M21 

M24 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

M41 

M42  M43 

M51 

M53 

Other 

Grand 
Total 

ES080 

ES091 

ES110 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

1 

1 

<1 

1 

1 

<1 

6 

8 

5 

98 

7 

4 

1 

6 

<1 

3 

67 

4 

1 

5 

<1 

1 

<1 

5 

8 

1 

2 

2 

<1 

1 

1 

2 

<1 

1 

1 

<1 

0 

0 

12 

23 

5 

192 

13 

Table A3 

Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES110 

ES150 

ES160 

M21  M22  M23  M24  M31  M32  M33  M34  M41  M42  M43  M51  M53 
11 
2 

3 

4 

1 

7 

4 

1 

3 

9 

6 

2 

5 

9 

9 

5 

4 

5 

5 

7 

7 

6 

7 

6 

23 

4 

5 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

12 

14 

14 

9 

8 

12 

11 

10 

10 

9 

10 

12 

17 

9 

11 

11 

6 

7 

8 

3 

7 

11 

4 

3 

3 

2 

2 

6 

8 

4 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

5 

5 

4 

7 

6 

6 

6 

9 

3 

7 

1 

4 

1 

3 

6 

6 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

7 

2 

1 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

53 

7 

18 

14 

8 

12 

9 

8 

6 

6 

6 

8 

9 

5 

6 

14 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

9 

8 

24 

24 

7 

3 

3 

7 

5 

5 

3 

3 

10 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

3 

5 

4 

3 

3 

3 

4 

9 

9 

2 

2 

3 

3 

7 

7 

4 

3 

3 

7 

3 

3 

3 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

13 

13 

13 

11 

11 

15 

11 

11 

11 

Other 

Grand Total 

53 

62 

90 

102 

57 

62 

70 

63 

65 

69 

56 

66 

69 

133 

53 

52 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 
Average per UoM 

M21  M22  M23  M24  M31  M32  M33  M34  M41  M42  M43  M51  M53 
197 
49 
116 
12 
3 
7 

131 
8 

157 
9 

186 
11 

8 
<1 

81 
5 

21 
1 

59 
3 

15 
1 

77 
5 

74 
4 

Other 

Grand Total 

0 
0 

1 171 
69 

Table A4 

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

Prevention 

Aggregate 

Individual 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES110 

ES150 

ES160 

12 

18 

25 

25 

16 

13 

19 

18 

17 

17 

15 

19 

20 

41 

14 

18 

18 

1 

1 

l
a
t
o
T

12 

18 

25 

25 

16 

13 

19 

18 

17 

17 

15 

19 

21 

42 

14 

18 

18 

Protection 

Aggregate 

Individual 

6 

4 

24 

20 

4 

5 

28 

8 

12 

2 

3 

32 

10 

13 

5 

10 

14 

18 

19 

11 

15 

19 

14 

13 

17 

11 

13 

13 

18 

8 

9 

6 

l
a
t
o
T

16 

18 

42 

39 

15 

20 

47 

22 

25 

19 

14 

45 

23 

31 

13 

9 

6 

Preparedness 

Aggregate 

Individual 

18 

15 

27 

38 

17 

21 

18 

17 

15 

15 

13 

20 

22 

52 

17 

11 

11 

1 

2 

1 

7 

l
a
t
o
T

18 

15 

28 

40 

18 

21 

18 

17 

15 

15 

13 

20 

22 

59 

17 

11 

11 

Recovery & review 

Aggregate 

Individual 

13 

15 

20 

20 

13 

13 

14 

14 

20 

20 

17 

14 

14 

22 

14 

14 

14 

1 

2 

l
a
t
o
T

13 

15 

20 

20 

13 

13 

14 

14 

20 

20 

17 

14 

15 

24 

14 

14 

14 

  Gran
r
e
h
t
O

d 
Total 

59 

66 

115 

124 

62 

67 

98 

71 

77 

71 

59 

98 

81 

156 

58 

52 

49 

Grand Total 

325 

2 

327 

228 

176 

404 

347 

11 

358 

271 

3 

274 

0 

1 363 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prevention 

Aggregate 

Individual 

Average per 
UoM 

19 

<1 

l
a
t
o
T

19 

Protection 

Aggregate 

Individual 

13 

10 

l
a
t
o
T

24 

Preparedness 

Aggregate 

Individual 

20 

1 

l
a
t
o
T

21 

Recovery & review 

Aggregate 

Individual 

l
a
t
o
T

  Gran
r
e
h
t
O

d 
Total 

16 

<1 

16 

0 

80 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The information in Tables A3, A4 and A5 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: 

Figure A1 

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

Figure A2 

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

56 

 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 
  Cost explanation (optional field). 

The reported information on costs in the reporting sheets is descriptive. For Spain, it was not 
possible to aggregate the information provided in tabular form. 

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 

For  Spain,  it  has  been  possible  to  identify  the  location  of  all  measures,  as  the  free  format 

answers are fairly uniform.  

Table A5 

Location of implementation by measure aspect 

Specific Location 

APSFR 

UoM 

Grand Total 

Preparedness 

Prevention 

Protection 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

1 

1 

1 

3 

309 

287 

86 

175 

857 

358 

327 

404 

274 

1 363 

48 

39 

317 

99 

503 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure A3 

Visualisation of Table A6: Location by measure aspect 

Table A6 

Location of implementation by UoM 

Specific Location 

APSFR 

UoM 

Grand Total 

3 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES110 

ES150 

ES160 

Grand Total 
Average per UoM 

3 
<1 

48 

46 

60 

80 

48 

52 

50 

51 

51 

51 

44 

46 

44 

55 

48 

43 

40 

857 
50 

59 

66 

115 

124 

62 

67 

98 

71 

77 

71 

59 

98 

81 

156 

58 

52 

49 

1 363 
80 

11 

20 

55 

41 

14 

15 

48 

20 

26 

20 

15 

52 

37 

101 

10 

9 

9 

503 
30 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A4 

Visualisation of Table A7: Location by UoM 

Geographic coverage 

No information reported in the reporting sheets.  

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

in the textual part of the XML); 

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

is required); 

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

required). 

Objectives 

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 the reporting for Spain, covering all reported UoMs, 218 different answers are given across 
the measures, which makes the aggregation of the information in tables and charts impractical.  

59 

 
 
 
Category of priority 

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

  Critical; 
  Very high; 
  High; 
  Moderate; 
  Low. 

Table A7 

Category of priority by measure aspect 

Critical 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & Review 

Grand Total 

176 

36 

158 

96 

466 

121 

216 

164 

123 

624 

30 

146 

36 

55 

267 

5 

5 

1 

1 

Grand 
Total 
327 

404 

358 

274 

1 363 

Figure A5 

Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by measure aspect 

Table A8 

Category of priority by UoM 

Critical 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

Grand Total 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

20 

18 

37 

39 

17 

28 

34 

38 

43 

30 

11 

14 

40 

42 

15 

60 

59 

66 

115 

124 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Critical 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

Grand Total 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES110 

ES150 

ES160 

Grand Total 

Average per 
UoM 

23 

25 

18 

44 

31 

29 

24 

30 

68 

19 

12 

12 

466 

27 

33 

63 

39 

24 

32 

21 

31 

39 

71 

29 

36 

33 

624 

37 

11 

10 

11 

9 

7 

9 

42 

11 

17 

10 

4 

4 

267 

16 

2 

1 

1 

1 

5 

<1 

1 

1 

<1 

67 

98 

71 

77 

71 

59 

98 

81 

156 

58 

52 

49 

1 363 

80 

Figure A6 

Visualisation of Table A9: Category of priority by UoM 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Timetable 

For  Spain,  there  does  not  seem  to  be  a  clear  relationship  between  the  timetable  and  the 

priorities. 653 different answers are provided on the timetable and the aggregation of the data 
was thus not possible.  

Measure details: authorities 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

Spain reported on both fields. The tables and charts below are developed based on the level of 

responsibility.  

Table A9 

Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

Municipal 

Regional 

National 

Other 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
Review 

18 

19 

5 

Grand Total 

42 

105 

87 

104 

36 

332 

182 

259 

146 

173 

760 

22 

39 

103 

65 

229 

327 

404 

358 

274 

1 363 

Figure A7 

Visualisation of Table A10: Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A10 

Level of responsibility by UoM 

Municipal 

Regional 

National 

Other 

Grand Total 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES110 

ES150 

ES160 

Grand Total 

Average per 
UoM 

3 

7 

2 

2 

3 

1 

1 

5 

1 

4 

5 

4 

2 

1 

1 

42 

2 

1 

24 

26 

24 

2 

1 

2 

2 

47 

43 

36 

19 

8 

78 

15 

2 

2 

332 

20 

43 

31 

31 

72 

44 

51 

79 

54 

28 

22 

21 

65 

54 

66 

28 

37 

34 

760 

45 

15 

8 

58 

21 

14 

13 

14 

14 

1 

1 

1 

10 

14 

8 

13 

12 

12 

229 

13 

59 

66 

115 

124 

62 

67 

98 

71 

77 

71 

59 

98 

81 

156 

58 

52 

49 

1 363 

80 

Figure A8 

Visualisation of Table A11: Level of responsibility by UoM 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

whose responses are analysed below; 

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

Spain  reported  information  about  the  progress  of  implementation  of  the  measures.  The 
progress of implementation was reported as76:  

  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 A11 

Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Not started 

Ongoing 
construction 

Progress 
ongoing 

Completed 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
Review 

Grand Total 

10 

109 

6 

29 

154 

6 

13 

20 

17 

56 

311 

281 

332 

228 

1 152 

1 

1 

327 

404 

358 

274 

1 363 

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

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

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure A9 

Visualisation of Table A12: Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Table A12 

Progress of implementation by UoM 

Not started 

Ongoing 
construction 

Progress 
ongoing 

Completed 

Grand Total 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES110 

ES150 

ES160 

Grand Total 

Average per 
UoM 

5 

28 

25 

5 

4 

3 

5 

3 

3 

3 

46 

6 

10 

4 

2 

2 

154 

9 

1 

1 

<1 

59 

66 

115 

124 

62 

67 

98 

71 

77 

71 

59 

98 

81 

156 

58 

52 

49 

1 363 

80 

13 

3 

3 

12 

1 

10 

12 

1 

1 

56 

3 

46 

57 

87 

99 

54 

51 

95 

65 

74 

68 

56 

52 

75 

136 

42 

49 

46 

1 152 

68 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A10  Visualisation of Table A13: Progress of implementation by UoM 

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

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

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

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

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

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

but are not finalized. 

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

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

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

provided any advisory session yet. 

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

66 

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

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

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

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

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

For  measures 
instructions, etc.): 

involving  administrative  acts  (e.g. 

licenses,  permits,  regulations, 

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

been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

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

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

Measure details: other 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Other Community Acts associated to the measures reported (optional field); 
  Any other information reported (optional field). 

For Spain, 159 different items are reported under other Community Acts. Consequently, it was 

not possible to aggregate the information into a table.  

67 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex B:  Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures77 

No Action 

M11 

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

Prevention 

M21 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

M35 

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 

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

warning system 

M42 

M43 

M44 

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

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

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

Recovery & Review 

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

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

68 

 
 
                                                           
M51 

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

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

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

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

M61 

policies 

Other 

Other 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)  

NWRM cover a wide range of actions and land use types. Many different measures can act as 
NWRM,  by  encouraging  the  retention  of  water  within  a  catchment  and,  through  that, 
enhancing  the  natural  functioning  of  the  catchment.  The  catalogue  developed  in  the  NWRM 
project  represents  a  comprehensive  but  non  prescriptive  wide  range  of  measures,  and  other 
measures,  or  similar  measures  called  by  a  different  name,  that  could  also  be  classified  as 
NWRM.  

To ease access to measures, the catalogue of measures hereunder is sorted by the primary land 
use in which it was implemented: Agriculture; Forest; Hydromorphology; Urban. Most of the 
measures however can be applied to more than one land use type. 

Table B2 

List of NWRMs 

Agriculture 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

F02 Maintenance of forest 
cover in headwater areas 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

A03 Crop rotation 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

U03 Permeable 
surfaces 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

U05 Channels and rills 

U06 Filter Strips 

A07 Low till agriculture 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 

U07 Soakaways 

69 

 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

A08 Green cover 

A09 Early sowing 

A10 Traditional 
terracing 

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

A13 Mulching 

F08 Appropriate design of 
roads and stream 
crossings 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

F11 Urban forest parks 

Hydro Morphology 
features 

Urban 

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 

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 

70