COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Luxembourg 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: Luxembourg, 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) 73 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Luxembourg Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 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 .................................................................................................... 8 

Good Practices....................................................................................................................... 12 

Areas for further development .............................................................................................. 13 

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

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

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

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

2. 

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

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

2.2 

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

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

2.4  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk 
maps ........................................................................................................................ 18 

2.5  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration 
of previously reported information ......................................................................... 19 

3. 

 Setting of Objectives ........................................................................................................ 20 

3.1 

3.2 

Focus of objectives ..................................................................................................... 20 

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................ 21 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ........................................... 21 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding ............................. 21 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives ............................................................................... 21 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ....... 22 

4. 

 Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ....................................................... 23 

4.1  Cost of measures ........................................................................................................ 24 

4.2 

Funding of measures .................................................................................................. 24 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) ............................................................ 24 

4.4  Measures and objectives............................................................................................. 24 

1 

 
 
4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures .................................................................... 24 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ........................................................................................... 25 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ........................................... 25 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures ................................................................... 26 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ........................................................... 26 

4.10  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ...................................................... 27 

4.11  Specific groups of measures ....................................................................................... 27 

4.12  Recovery from and resilience to flooding .................................................................. 28 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive ................................................... 29 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures ............. 30 

5.  Consideration of climate change ....................................................................................... 31 

5.1 

Specific types of measures planned to address expected effects of climate change .. 31 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change ......... 31 

6.  Cost-benefit analysis.......................................................................................................... 32 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ..................................................... 32 

7. 

 Governance  including  administrative  arrangements,  public  information  and  consultation
 ........................................................................................................................................... 33 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................ 33 

7.2 

Public information and consultation .......................................................................... 33 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders .......................................................................... 35 

7.4 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................ 36 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 37 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................ 37 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 38 

Background & method .......................................................................................................... 38 

Types of measures used in reporting ..................................................................................... 39 

List of Annex A tables & figures .......................................................................................... 40 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................ 41 

Measure details: cost ............................................................................................................. 44 

Measure details: objectives ................................................................................................... 46 

Measure details: authorities ................................................................................................... 48 

2 

 
 
Measure details: progress ...................................................................................................... 48 

Measure details: other ........................................................................................................... 50 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types .................................................................................... 51 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) ................................................. 52 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

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

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

4 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

This report assesses the FRMP for Luxembourg1. 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. 

  One  FRMP  –  Luxembourg  reported  one  national  FRMP  covering  the  Mosel  unit  of 

management (UoM) LU_000. 

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

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

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)  

Luxembourg  has  two  UoMs,  which  are  both  international.  These  two  UoMs  correspond  in 
territory to  the two River Basin Districts  (RBDs) that Luxembourg has established  under the 

Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD).  The  Mosel  UoM  (LU000),  which  is  part  of  the 
international Rhine UoM, covers 97.3 % of the surface area of the country. The Chiers UoM 

(LU001), which is  part  of the international  Meuse UoM, covers 2.7 % of the surface area in 
Luxembourg.  The  latter  is  not  considered  flood  risk  relevant  and  no  FRMP  was  prepared. 

Therefore, Luxembourg reported only one FRMP covering the Mosel UoM. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No information was found concerning the legal status of the FRMP3,4.   

The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in Luxembourg, including the UoM code, the 
name, and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if the UoM reported all documents 
required to the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE5 – the FRMP as a PDF and the 
reporting sheet as an XML.  

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Luxembourg 

UoM 

LU000 
LU001 
TOTAL 

Name 

Number of APSFRs 

XML Reported 

PDF Reported 

RHINE (Mosel) 
MEUSE (Chiers) 

15 
- 
15 

Yes 
No 

National level 
No 

The FRMP can be downloaded in French or in German from the following web page: 

  https://eau.public.lu/directive_cadre_eau/directive_inondation/1er-cycle/HWRML-

PL_final/index.html 

3   The  FRMPs  do  mention,  however,  that,  the  flood  hazard  and  risk  maps  have  legal  status  under  national 
regulations  approved  in  2015  (Mémoriales  A  Numbers  39,  40,  41,  42,  44  and  45,  all  2015):  FRMP  of 
22.12.2015, Section 7.2, p.76.   

4   Luxemburg  informed  in  May  2018  that  the  FRMP  was  adopted  by  the  Luxembourgish  Government  on  16 
March 2018 and published as the Arrêté ministériel du 9 avril 2018 portant publication du plan de gestion des 
risques  d’inondations  du  Grand-Duché  de  Luxembourg  in  the  Journal  officiel  du  Grand-Duché  de 
Luxembourg: 
http://legilux.public.lu//eli/etat/adm/amin/2018/04/09/b1010/jo 

5   http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/603/deliveries?id=603&tab=deliveries&d-4014547-p=1&d-4014547-

o=2&d-4014547-s=3 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Overview of the assessment 

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

The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: 

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

not met; 

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

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

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

FRMP to address the criterion. 

Table 2 

Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMP 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

FRM objectives have been 
established 

Strong evidence 

FRM objectives relate to... 

...the reduction of potential 
adverse consequences  

Strong evidence  

The broad overall objectives for flood 
management of LAWA (Länder 
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser und Abwasser – 
Länder Working Group Water and 
Wastewater) in Germany have been adopted, 
to ensure a unified approach within trans-
boundary Flood Management Partnerships. 

This is part of the broad overall objectives 
adopted from LAWA, which includes 
‘protecting populations immediately outside 
flood risk zones to minimise creating new 
risks’. 

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

Strong evidence  

This is part of the broad overall objectives 
adopted from LAWA. 

...to non-structural initiatives   Strong evidence 

The focus of the objectives lies on non-
structural measures for flood preparedness and 
or minimising the adverse consequences of 
flooding, such as raising public awareness.  

8 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to... 

...human health  

Strong evidence 

...economic activity  

Strong evidence 

The proposed catalogue of measures (also 
adopted from LAWA and used for the 
selection of appropriate measures for 
Luxembourg) includes in its general 
framework of objectives the following: 
(i) Human Health: to reduce the number of 
people affected by flooding; 

(ii) to reduce the adverse consequences on 
economic activity (and not to create new 
ones); 

...environment  

Strong evidence 

(iii) to avoid damage to the environment; 

...cultural heritage  

Strong evidence 

Measures have been... 

...identified  

Strong evidence  

...prioritised  

Some evidence  

(iv) to protect the cultural heritage by applying 
the same principles as for protecting the 
population and the environment. 

Luxembourg has reported 883 measures, 
which were identified (selected from the 
LAWA catalogue of measures) by local 
authorities, river and flood partnerships, 
citizens, enterprises, and other stakeholders to 
encourage local, private and corporate 
initiatives at national level.  

An element of prioritisation is embodied in 
general terms in the overall objectives which 
include ‘defining measures to reduce the risk 
of flooding, which can be implemented in the 
short-term’, but there seemed to be no specific 
prioritising of individual measures, except in 
terms of compatibility with the WFD 
objectives (i.e. synergy with WFD = high 
priority). 

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

...costs & benefits  

No evidence  

It is stated that no cost-benefit analyses have 
been carried out. However, a semi-quantitative 
effectiveness analysis was carried out with 
five categories (scale from zero to ++++) for 
the effects on flood risk, river flow, and WFD 
relevance. 

9 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

...flood conveyance  

No evidence  

...water retention  

Strong evidence 

...environmental objectives 
of the WFD  

Strong evidence  

...spatial planning/land use   Strong evidence  

...nature conservation  

Some evidence  

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

Some evidence  

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Some evidence  

The flooded areas are shown for three 
different risk/hazard scenarios on the flood 
hazard/risk maps (which have legal status) and 
these were taken into account when selecting 
measures. 

There is no clear reference to flood 
conveyance.  

Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) 
have been planned in catchments and in 
wetlands, as well as reductions in 
impermeable surfaces, and restoration of flood 
plains. 

The relevance of selected measures to the 
environmental objectives of the WFD was 
assessed in a semi-quantitative effectiveness 
analysis resulting in five categories of 
effectiveness (scale from zero to ++++). 

A number of spatial planning and land use 
measures are included/planned, e.g. measures 
to prevent new buildings, and other land use 
restrictions are subject to controls and 
legislation in flood risk/hazard areas, as 
designated on the maps. 

Protection zones under the Habitats and Birds 
Directives are indicated on the FHRMs, and 
reference is made to Natura 2000 sites, but it is 
not clear if or how these have been taken into 
account when selecting measures. 

Navigation on the Mosel and the port at 
Mertert are mentioned in relation to a Seveso 
site and storage/handling of chemicals, but it is 
not clear if or how these have been taken into 
account when selecting measures. 

Work is ongoing, e.g. the effect on flooding 
has been calculated, and the national strategy 
on climate change is under development. 

10 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM 

Strong evidence 

Coordination ensured with 
WFD 

Strong evidence 

Active involvement of 
interested parties 

Strong evidence 

There has been close collaboration with 
Germany, France and Belgium in the area of 
Flood Risk Management (FRM), in particular 
within the International Commission for the 
Protection of the Mosel-Saar (ICPMS) (sub-
basin of the Rhine). In addition, the 
preparation of the FHRMs and measures 
closely follow the German LAWA 
recommendations. 

Measures have been co-ordinated with the 
requirements of the WFD. Measures were 
assessed in terms of their relevance to the 
WFD objectives and classified as M1 (synergy 
between the two Directives), M2 (potential 
conflict, requiring more detailed local 
assessment) and M3 (not relevant, but may 
require more detailed local assessment). 
Measures classified as M1 were considered 
high priority for implementation. The 
relevance to the WFD and the effect of each 
measure on WFD objectives are listed in 
Annex 1 (as a semi-quantitative assessment 
with five categories ranging from 0 to ++++). 

Public consultation was designed to involve 
stakeholders and relevant authorities and 
associations (newly formed Flood 
Management Partnerships) at an early stage of 
the planning process (starting in 2010/11) and 
involved three parts, i.e. (i) dissemination of 
information, (ii) active participation and (iii) 
formal hearings. The Flood Management 
Partnerships and pre-existing River 
Management Partnerships were actively 
involved in the selection of measures and 
continue to be involved in their 
implementation. 

11 

 
 
 
 
Good Practices 

The assessment identified the following good practices in the Luxembourgish FRMP assessed. 

Table 3 

Good practices in the Luxembourgish FRMP 

Topic area 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

 Good practices identified 

The FHRMs have been refined to include more information on 
economic activity and measures and are available (on the internet) to 
the public, providing detail down to street or individual building 
level, for three different hazard/risk scenarios.  

The information on the maps include quantitative impacts, such as 
flood extent and water depth (ranges), and number of people 
(ranges) affected, whilst economic activities are shown on the maps 
(separate land use overlay), including old discharges/polluted sites, 
Seveso and Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) risk sites, sensitive 
buildings (incl. schools, hospitals) and protected areas (Drinking 
Water, Habitats and Bird Directives). 

Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk.  

The overall objectives are clear and comprehensive, developed also 
through public and international/cross-boundary consultation. 

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

The FRMP (in its Annex I) provides a semi-quantitative 
effectiveness analysis of measures with five categories (scale from 
zero to ++++) for the effects on: flood risk, river flow, and WFD 
relevance. 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Public participation.  

Flood risk governance.  

International issues in flood 
risk management.  

The great majority (90 %) of individual measures are NWRMs. 

Climate change has been investigated and the effects on river flows 
at the different risk scenarios have been estimated in terms of 
percentage change in river flows at 10 locations (fluvial flooding is 
the only type considered relevant). 
Public consultation involved a wide range of stakeholders and 
consisted of (i) provision of information, (ii) active involvement in 
the preparation of the FRMP and selection of measures and 
continuing involvement in implementing measures, and (iii) formal 
hearings. 

The results of active involvement and wider consultation were 
largely incorporated into the FRMP. 
Whilst overall responsibility for the implementation of both the 
Floods Directive and the WFD lies with the Administration for 
Water Management in the Ministry for Sustainable Development, 
relevant Local Authorities and stakeholders play a large role in flood 
risk management, including via Flood Management Partnerships. 
There is good trans-boundary co-operation within the International 
Commissions for the Protection of the Saar-Mosel and the Rhine, 

12 

 
 
Topic area 

 Good practices identified 
including a unified approach with Germany to overall objectives and 
selection of measures at national level, and consequently covering 
trans-boundary APSFRs, facilitated by three transboundary Flood 
Management Partnerships. 

Areas for further development 

The assessment identified the following areas for further development  in the  Luxembourgish 

FRMP assessed. 

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Luxembourgish FRMP 

Topic area 
Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk.  

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

Areas identified for further development 

There are no specific (measurable) objectives and therefore no 
quantitative targets to achieve/measure, although it is mentioned that 
more detailed objectives were developed at local or APSFR level. 
Whereas Annex 1 of the FRMP lists all measures together with the 
expected implementation time frame (the majority are planned for 
2015-2021),6 it is not clear if or how the objectives are measurable. 

There is no clear information on costs and funding sources. 

There is no clear method for demonstrating how measures will 
contribute to the objectives of the FRMP (neither objectives nor 
measures are specific), although links between the 13 measure types 
and 25 overall objectives are indicated and individual measures are 
linked to measure types.7 8 
There is no clear prioritisation of individual measures, except in 
terms of compatibility with the WFD objectives.  

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

The potential change on flood risk, as a consequence of climate 
change, does not seem to have been taken into account when 
defining objectives and measures. 

Use of cost-benefit analysis 
(CBA) in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Flood risk governance.  

No reference to the national climate change adaptation strategy was 
found. 

Although a semi-quantitative effectiveness assessment was 
undertaken, no CBA was carried out. 

It is not always clear in the FRMP who is responsible at local level 
for undertaking specific measures, although a database (LuxMaPro3) 
has been quoted. It provides details of measures and identifies local 

6   Luxembourg informed subsequently a clear implementation timetable will be included in the next FRMP. 
7   In Annex 1 of the FRMP. 
8   Luxembourg informed subsequently that clear links between measures and objectives will be included in the 

next FRMP. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
 
Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

responsibilities but is currently only available for administrative 
purposes. 

Recommendations 

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

  Specific  and  measurable  objectives  should  be  developed  to  the  extent  possible,  which 
would  then  allow  clear  targets  to  be  set  and  achievements  of  progress  to  be  measured 

against a baseline. How measures link to objectives should be considered. 

  The potential change on flood risk, as a consequence of climate change, should be taken 
into account to the extend possible when defining objectives and measures; Coordination 

between  the  FRMP  and  the  national  climate  change  adaptation  strategy  should  be 
ensured or elaborated upon. 

  Costs  of  measure  estimations  and  specific  funding  sources  should  be  included  in  the 

FRMP. 

  The  prioritisation  approach  in  the  FRMP  should  be  evaluated  with  a  view  to 
strengthening in the 2nd cycle. A CBA of measures should be developed and undertaken 
whenever possible. 

  The timeline of implementation of measures should be more clearly set out in the FRMP, 

and/or provide key information from the LuxMaPro database9. 

9   LuxMaPro is a database for measures implemented at local community level, where for each measure the local 
authority, working group or Flood Management Partnerships responsible for its implementation is named. The 
FRMP states that at the  time  of its publication, this database  is a restricted administrative tool,  but the  long 
term aim is to make it public on the Geoportal (http://eau.geoportail.lu). 

14 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Luxembourg  reported  only  one  FRMP  covering  the  Mosel  UoM  (LU000),  part  of  the  Rhine 
international UoM/RBD. No FRMP was reported for the other UoM in Luxembourg (Chiers, 

LU001, part of the Meuse international UoM/RBD) as it was not considered relevant for flood 
risk. Luxembourg did not use Art. 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). 

The FRMP can be downloaded in French or in German from the following web page: 

  https://eau.public.lu/directive_cadre_eau/directive_inondation/1er-cycle/HWRML-

PL_final/index.html 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs 

The sole FRMP reported by Luxembourg has been assessed: 

Table 5 

UoM in Luxembourgish FRMP 

UoM code 
LU000 

UoM Name 
Rhine 

15 

 
 
 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

The conclusions of the PFRA are provided in a textual description and summary maps of the 

APSFRs covered by the FRMP. The history of flood protection in Luxembourg is described at 
length from the time of significant flooding events in 1983, through to the first collaboration 

on  Flood  Risk  Management  (FRM)  with  neighbouring  EU  Member  States  within  the 
International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the  Mosel-Saar  (ICPMS,  sub-basin  of  the 

Rhine) in 1995, and the description of various action plans up to 2010. The FRMP then briefly 
describes the designation of 15 APSFRs (these are along 15 different river courses) reported in 

2012;  these  areas  are  listed  including  the  four  countries  the  rivers  are  shared  with,  together 
with a very unclear printed map indicating the APSFRs (detailed maps can be accessed on the 

Geoportal). The designation of the APSFRs has not changed since 2012. The FRMP states that 
Art.13(1)(b)  of  the  Floods  Directive  was  applied.  The  method  of  APSFR  designation  is 

described briefly and involved collaboration with neighbouring countries. 

Examples of flood hazard and flood risk maps are shown in the FRMP and a link is provided10, 
where the public can access maps for any area, town or river, with three different levels of risk 

or  hazard  (high,  medium  or  low),  different  map  backgrounds,  including  overlay  of  land  use 
maps and legends. Maps can cover the whole of Luxembourg or focused in at street level, but 
they are not specific to an APSFR. Historic flood events can also be looked up. 

The  rivers  and  flooded  areas  are  shown  on  the  flood  risk  maps,  but  there  seems  to  be  no 

information  on  flood  conveyance  routes,  although  some  may  be  found  when  focusing  in  on 
locations on the maps where measures are also indicated. 

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

There  has  been  close  collaboration  with  Germany,  France  and  Belgium  on  flood  risk 
management since 1995 within the ICPMS, and the designation of APSFRs was based on an 

Interreg  IIIB  project,  TIMIS  Flood  (Transitional  Internet  Map  Information  System  on 
Flooding),  carried  out  with  France  and  Germany,  together  with  historical  data  and  in 

agreement with the relevant authorities of neighbouring countries.  

10   The link provided to the Geoportal is http://eau.geoportail.lu and can be accessed by the public. It is necessary 
to navigate to the Floods Directive area, then choose risk or hazard maps, and provide a location to display the 
relevant map for the chosen location.   

16 

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

There  were  no  major  changes  other  than  some  adjustments  to  FHRMs  in  2013,  following 
public consultation and reference to updated data. The FRMP reports that some recalculations 

were performed on the maps for APSFRs Alzette (A01), the Sauer (A03), the Roudbach/Attert 
confluence  (A12/A11)  and  localised  adjustments  were  made  on  the  Roudbach  (A12),  Syr 

(A02),  the  White  Emz  (A05),  Pall  (A13),  Mamer  (A15)  and  Our  (A08).  Recalculations  of 
mapping  data  involved  consideration  of  additional  measures  (extended  re-naturalisation 

measures  in  the  Alzette  APSFR  A01,  and  ecologically  oriented  flood  protection  measures  in 
the  Sauer  APSFR  A03);  and  in  some  locations  more  detailed  modelling  using  a  two-

dimensional  water  level  model  (Nordstad  in  A01,  Roudbach/Attert  confluence  A12/A11). 
These updates were undertaken in the maps made available to the public in 2014. 

2.2 

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

Examples of FHRMs are shown in the FRMP and the link for accessing the maps is provided11. 
The cause of flooding is not specified on the maps12, but they are fluvial maps as confirmed by 
the  Luxembourg  authorities13  (with  flooding  caused  by  heavy  rainfall).  Other  flood  types  do 
not  seem  to  be  relevant  or  have  not  been  assessed  (coastal  flooding  is  not  relevant  as 

Luxembourg is landlocked). 

The  information  on  the  maps  include  quantitative  impacts,  such  as  flood  extent  and  water 
depth  (ranges),  and  number  of  people  (ranges)  affected  for  three  different  risk/hazard 

scenarios,  whilst  economic  activities  are  shown  on  the  maps  (separate  land  use  overlay), 
including  old  discharges/polluted  sites,  Seveso  and  IED  risk  sites,  sensitive  buildings  (incl. 

schools, hospitals) and protected areas (Drinking Water, Habitats and Bird Directives). 

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

The maps are national, but the APSFRs shared with other countries are indicated in the FRMP 
(text,  not  as  a  map)14.  As  indicated  previously,  there  has  been  close  co-operation  with 
neighbouring  Member  States,  mainly  within  the  ICPMS,  as  well  as  within  the  European 
Interreg  III  project  B  TIMIS  Flood  (Transitional  Internet  Map  Information  System  on 

11   The link for maps is: http://eau.geoportail.lu. See also the previous footnotes. Examples of maps in the FRMP, 

version 22.12.2015 (in German), Section 1.2, pp.16-19 and Section 2, p.23. 

12   In  May  2018  Luxembourg  remarked  that  this  will  be  addressed  in  the  update  of  the  FHRMs  by  December 

2019. 

13   Confirmation concerning fluvial maps: ‘EU overview of methodologies used in preparation of Flood Hazard 

and Flood Risk Maps’ Report (2015), Table 4.2. p.25. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/EU%20FHRM%20Overview%20Report.p
df 

14   Luxembourg noted in May 2018 that the following hyperlinks will be provided in the next update on mapping 

and co-operation: http://www.iksms-cipms.org/servlet/is/66959/ 

17 

 
 
                                                 
 
Flooding). The risk evaluations were agreed with authorities of neighbouring countries (France 
and Germany), and are to be reviewed and updated where appropriate by the end of 2018 and 

every six years thereafter. The preparation of the FHRMs and measures also closely follow the 
German LAWA15 recommendations and is agreed with the relevant neighbouring MS. 

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

The  FHRMs  were  used  as  a  basis  for  planning  and  prioritising  measures,  including  the 
identification  of  ‘flooding  hotspots’  requiring  particularly  urgent  actions  to  reduce  the  flood 

risk. They formed an important tool to promote public participation (beyond the initial public 
consultation  process),  including  public  information,  and  allowing  stakeholders  to  suggest 

appropriate  measures  (from  the  German  LAWA  catalogue  of  measures),  which  were  then 
examined by experts and allocated to risk areas as appropriate. 

2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

Any changes in the identification of APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas since December 2011 

should be reflected in the FRMP. There are 15 APSFRs (Codes: A01-A15) and these have not 
changed since reporting in 2012, although some adjustments were made as detailed above. No 

changes  or  updated  information  concerning  the  FHRMs  after  2013  were  found;  the  FHRMs 
available on the Geoportal are those produced in 2013. 

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

The  2014  FHRM  assessment16  identified  the  following  areas  for  further  development  for 
Luxembourg: 

  Economic  activity:  According  to  Art.6(5)(b)  of  the  Floods  Directive,  flood  risk  maps 
shall show the potential adverse consequences associated with flood scenario in terms of 

type of economic activity. Luxembourg did not show the type of economic activities in 
its FHRMs.  

  Links  to  national  maps:  Links  to  national  FHRMs  were  not  reported  to  the  European 

Commission. 

  Climate change: Climate change was not included in the analysis.  

All the areas for further development identified have been addressed, as follows: 

15   Länder Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser und Abwasser – Länder Working Group Water and Wastewater. 
16   Based on: European Commission, Assessment of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps – Member State Report: 

LU – Luxembourg, 2014. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/LU%20FHRM%20Report.pdf 

18 

 
 
                                                 
 
  Economic  activity:  The  FHRMs  can  be  overlaid  with  a  land-use  map  which  includes 
details,  such  as  Agricultural  areas,  Vineyards,  Orchards,  Urban  areas,  Industrial/ 
commercial  zones,  etc.  However,  the  land  use  map  added  in  2013  was  not  the  latest 

version,  and  the  FRMP  states  that  this  will  be  updated  in  the  next  cycle.  Old 
discharges/contaminated  sites,  Seveso  sites  and  IED  sites  are  indicated  on  the  current 

maps.  

  Links to national maps for all UoMs: A link is provided in the FRMP where FHRMs can 
be called up for any location (the maps had been available to the public, though the link 
was not provided in previous reporting).  

  Climate change: According to the FRMP, this has now been assessed and the effects on 
river  flows  at  the  different  risk  scenarios  have  been  estimated  in  terms  of  percentage 

change in river flows at 10 locations. They do not, however, seem to have been included 
in the current maps, as they are predictions for 2021-2050.  

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

The following good practices have been identified:  

 

International co-operation and public participation was strong in the previous steps (see 
also section 7 for details). There is close co-operation with neighbouring Member States 

(Germany,  France  and  Belgium),  mainly  within  the  ICPMS.  The  preparation  of  the 
FHRMs and the selection of measures also closely follow the German LAWA approach 

and are agreed with the relevant neighbouring Member States. 

  The FHRMs have been refined to include more information on economic activity and on 
measures and are available on the internet to the public, providing detail down to street 

or individual building level for three different hazard/risk scenarios.  

  The information on the maps include quantitative impacts, such as flood extent and water 
depth  (ranges),  and  number  of  people  (ranges)  affected,  whilst  economic  activities  are 
shown on the maps (separate land use overlay), including old discharges/polluted sites, 

Seveso  and  IED  risk  sites,  sensitive  buildings  (incl.  schools,  hospitals)  and  protected 
areas (Drinking Water, Habitats and Bird Directives).  

19 

 
 
 
 
3. 

 Setting of Objectives 

3.1  Focus of objectives 

The FRMP does not include specific objectives. Instead, the broad overall objectives set out by 
LAWA17 in  Germany have been  adopted  and included in  the FRMP for  Luxembourg. These 
objectives are: 

 

 

 

 

reduce flood occurrence (prevent new risks); 

reduce the existing risks (protection); 

reduce the adverse consequences of floods (preparedness); and  

reduce the adverse consequences of floods after the event (recovery and review).  

By using the LAWA objectives and preparing the FRMP in line with Germany’s approach, a 

unified  approach  is  ensured  within  the  three  transboundary  Flood  Management  Partnerships 
(Luxembourg created a total of five of these voluntary associations of local authorities, official 

bodies  and  other  stakeholders,  actively  involved  in  the  preparation  of  the  FRMP  –  see  more 
detail  in  Section 7). The overriding objectives are stated as ‘defining  measures to  reduce the 

risk  of  flooding,  which  can  be  implemented  in  the  short-term’,  and  in  addition,  ‘protecting 
populations  immediately  outside  flood  risk  zones  so  as  to  minimise  creating  new  risks’ 

(protecting those inside the risk zones is implicit in the first objective).  

Consequently, in the FRMP assessed18: 

  The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods. 
  The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding19. 
  The  objectives  aim  to  coordinate  flood  risk  with  neighbouring  transboundary  countries 
(e.g.  to  ensure  that  measures  taken  do  not  increase  the  flood  risk  in  the  neighbouring 

country). 

  The objectives have another focus (reducing adverse consequence after a flood event). 

According  to  the  FRMP,  more  detailed  objectives  are  set  at  local  or  APSFR  level;  it  is  not 

clear what these are (and if they are specific/measurable/time-bound) as they are not set out in 
the FRMP but are used as a basis for developing the measures.  

17   Länder Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser und Abwasser – Länder Working Group Water and Wastewater. 
18   These categories are included in Art. 7 of the Floods Directive. 
19   The assessment adopts the generally accepted definition of risk as a product of consequence times likelihood, 

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

20 

 
 
                                                 
3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

In  Luxembourg,  the  objectives  are  neither  specific  nor  measurable.  No  specific  measurable 

objectives have been set (only some more detailed regional/local objectives, which served as a 
basis for selecting measures, but have not been published). 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

The  overall  objectives  of  reducing  adverse  consequences  are  explained  in  terms  of  human 

health,  economic  activity,  environment  and  cultural  heritage  (see  also  the  following 
paragraphs).  

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

The  broad  overall  objectives  and  the  catalogue  of  measures  (status  2013)  from  the  German 

working  group  LAWA  formed  the  basis  to  select  more  detailed  objectives  and  proposed 
measures  (proposed  catalogue  of  objectives  and  measures,  see  below).The  more  detailed 

objectives were elaborated at local or APSFR level for each given situation (but not included in 
the FRMP, although the links between the 13 overall objectives and the 25 measure types are 
described in the plan), to serve as a basis for developing measures.  

The  main  focus  of  these  proposed  catalogues  of  objectives  and  measures  was  to  provide 

guidance  to  local  authorities,  river  and  flood  partnerships,  citizens  and  enterprises  and  to 
encourage local, private and corporate initiatives under the general framework of: (a) ‘Human 

Health’:  reducing  the  number  of  people  affected  by  flooding;  (b)  ‘Environment’:  avoiding 
damage  to  the  environment;  (c)  ‘Cultural  Heritage’:  protecting  the  cultural  heritage  by 

applying  the  same  principles  as  for  protecting  the  population  and  the  environment;  and  (d) 
‘Economic  Activity’:  reducing  the  adverse  consequences  on  economic  activity  (and  not  to 

create  new  ones).  The  proposed  ‘catalogue  of  objectives’  is  mentioned  in  the  FRMP  but  not 
included,  as  it  seems  to  have  served  as  a  working  document  to  develop  (through  active 

participation  of  the  public  -  see  section  7  of  this  report)  the  final  catalogue  of  measures  in 
Annex  1  of  the  FRMP,  which  does  not  include  the  detailed  objectives,  although  individual 
measures are listed against measure types20. 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

Objectives  have  been  co-ordinated  at  national  (various  administrations,  including  local 
community authorities  and the public  at  large)  and international  level  (Flood Risk  and River 
Management Partnerships, International Commissions for the Protection of the Mosel-Saar, the 

20   Luxembourg subsequently clarified clear links between measures and objectives will be included in the next 

FRMP. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
Rhine  and  the  Meuse).  Public  participation  was  an  integral  part  of  preparing  the  FRMP, 
including  setting  overall  objectives,  and  more  detailed  local  objectives  and  measures.  Whilst 

effects of climate change have been addressed, the absence of specific objectives means it is 
not possible to assess how and if they have been addressed in choosing measures, except in a 

broad overall context.  

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 
objectives 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The overall objectives are clear and comprehensive.  

  The  process  to  develop  objectives  included  extensive  public  consultation  (at  local 
community level  – see  Section 7 of this  report) and trans-boundary co-operation, i.e. a 
unified approach with Germany to overall objectives setting and selection of measures at 

national level, and consequently covering trans-boundary APSFRs.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Luxembourg’s FRMP does not set specific objectives and therefore has no quantitative 
targets  to  achieve  or  measure  progress  against,  although  it  is  mentioned  that  more 

detailed  objectives  were  developed  at  local  or  APSFR  level.  Although  Annex  1  of  the 
FRMP  lists  all  measures  together  with  the  expected  implementation  time  frame,  the 
majority  are  planned  for  2015-2021,21  it  is  not  clear  if  or  how  the  objectives  are 
measurable. 

21   Luxembourg informed subsequently a clear implementation timetable will be included in the next FRMP. 

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.   Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Luxembourg  has  reported  a  total  number  of  813  individual  measures  to  be  implemented  at 
local  level  and  70  aggregated22  measures:  the  latter,  according  to  the  FRMP,  can  be 
implemented  at  national  level  and  include  strategic/conceptual  measures  (see  below).  In 
consequence, the total number of measures is 88323.  

Measures  are  reported  for  the  aspects  of  flood  risk  management:  Prevention,  Protection, 
Preparedness, Recovery & Review, and “Other Measures”24,25. The Luxembourgish catalogue 
of  Measures  is  based  on  the  German  LAWA  Catalogue  of  Measures,  which  includes  a  “300 
series” and a “500 series” of measures; the numbering system of the LAWA catalogue has also 

been adopted, rather than the EU coding (which is found in Annex B below). The 300 series of 
measures (numbers 301-328) selected for Luxembourg includes measures divided into the five 

EU aspects. The 500 series are “strategic/conceptual measures” implemented at national level 
only (see below).  

The  number  of  Prevention  measures  is  very  low  (18  out  of  883,  2  %  of  the  total)  while  the 
great majority of measures is for Protection (823 of 883, 93 % of the total). However, the 25 

“strategic/conceptual measures” and some other aggregated measures, which apply nationwide, 
relate  to  overall  risk  reduction  and  prevention:  see  tables  A3  and  A4  in  Annex  A  of  this 

document,  where  the  25  strategic/conceptual  measures  are  listed  under  “other  aggregated 
measures”.  Therefore,  the  overall  number  of  measures  for  prevention  is  actually  higher  than 

2%.  Among  the  25  “strategic/conceptual  measures”  which  apply  at  national  level,  the 
following measures are included: preparation of concepts, studies, assessments and changes in 

legislation;  information  and  educational  measures;  advisory  measures;  setting  up  or  revising 
promotional  programmes;  and  investigations  into  climate  change.  These  measures  relate  to 

overall risk reduction and prevention in general across Luxembourg and correspond to the 25 
“other” aggregated measures, (see Table A4 in Annex A of this report)26. 

Please see Annex A for further details and supplementary tables and charts on measures. 

22   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. 

23   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. 

24   For details about all measure aspects and measure types see Annex B. 
25   Luxembourg subsequently clarified that these “other measures” are measures that there is no correspondence 

between the LAWA Codes and the EU Codes.  

26   Luxembourg  clarified  subsequently  that  these  are  indeed  aggregate  measures  that  are  planned  to  be 

implemented at the national level. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
4.1 

Cost of measures 

Luxembourg’s FRMP and reporting sheets did not provide information on costs or budgets of 

measures planned. 

4.2  Funding of measures 

Luxembourg’s FRMP and reporting sheets did not provide any information on funding of the 
measures27,  except  in  relation  to  ‘Preparedness  Measures’  as  follows:  "because  it  is  not 
possible to take out insurance against flood damage in Luxembourg, funds have to be set aside 

at  national  and/or  private  level.  (Funds  for  recovery  can  be  obtained  from  the  State  if  a 
national disaster has been declared)". 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location)  

The  measures  have  no  quantitative  element  and  are  therefore  not  measurable,  but  many  are 
defined at local community level and the locations are indicated on the Flood Risk Maps. 

4.4  Measures and objectives 

It is not clear how the 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.  Since  both  the  objectives  and  the  measures  reported  for 
Luxembourg  are  not  specific,  it  is  not  possible  to  make  any  quantitative  assessment  of 

achievement  of  objectives.  However,  Annex  I  of  the  FRMP  (Catalogue  of  measures)  lists 
measures  and  includes  a  semi-quantitative  effectiveness  analysis  for  each  measure  with  five 

categories  (scale  from  zero  to  ++++)  for  the  effect  on  flood  risk  and  river  flow,  and  WFD 
relevance.  

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

The  FRMP  and  online  flood  maps  linked  to  specific  layers  in  the  geoportal  provide 

information on the location of measures. The 25  “strategic/conceptual measures” are national 
(UoM)/implemented  at  national  level  (e.g.  studies,  assessments  and  legislative  matters, 

information  and educational  measures,  advisory  services, programme promotions  and studies 
related  to  climate  change)  whereas  the  majority  of  the  other  measures  are  implemented 
predominantly at the levels of local community  and the seven flood risk hot spots level (this 
can  be  seen  on  the  Flood  Risk  Maps28).  In  addition,  Annex  I  of  the  FRMP  (Catalogue  of 

27   Luxembourg  subsequently  commented  that  this  will  be  addressed  in  the  update  of  the  FRMP  in  December 

2021. 

28   Available at: http://eau.geoportail.lu 

24 

 
 
                                                 
measures)  indicates  whether  the  measures  selected  for  Luxembourg  from  the  LAWA 
Catalogue  are  planned  or  implemented  at  national  or  local  level,  and  lists  the  relevant 

municipality, community, partnership or APSFR, as appropriate.  

Luxembourg reported the geographic coverage of the effects of the measures. The geographic 
coverage  of  all  individual  measures  (813)  is  a  single  APSFR  (i.e.  measures  are  uniquely 

apportioned to individual APSFRs). For the 70 aggregated measures, the geographic coverage 
is the UoM (for details see Table A6 and Figure A3 in Annex A below). 

4.6  Prioritisation of measures 

Luxembourg  listed  all  measures  as  ‘very  high’  priority29;  this  is  in  line  with  the  overall 
objective of selecting measures which can be implemented in the short-term.  

No CBA has been made to prioritise the measures. Instead, measures have been selected from 
the German LAWA Catalogue of measures, in line with the overriding objective of ‘defining 
measures  to  reduce  the  risk  of  flooding,  which  can  be  implemented  in  the  short-term’,  and 

‘protecting  populations  immediately  outside  flood  risk  zones  so  as  to  minimise  creating  new 
risks’. However, the results of the semi-quantitative effectiveness analysis that was carried out 

was used to  prioritise measures that had synergies with  the WFD  (for details  see the section 
‘Measures taken under other Community Acts’). 

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

Luxembourg  did  not  report  information  about  the  responsible  authorities  and  level  of 

responsibility  for  the  measures  in  the  reporting  sheet.  The  FRMP  states  that  overall 
responsibility lies with  the Ministry  for Sustainable Development  and the Administration for 

Water  Management; 
involving  research, 
investigations  and  administrative  acts.  Direct  responsibility  for  other  national  measures  lies 

latter  has  responsibility  for  measures 

the 

with various national institutions (not detailed). Local measures and those at APSFR level are 
with  local  communities  and/or  Flood  Management  or  River  Management  Partnerships.  No 

details  are  provided,  but  there  is  reference  to  a  database  (LuxMaPro)  for  measures 
implemented  at  local  community  level,  where  for  each  measure  the  local  authority,  working 
group  or  Flood  Management  Partnerships  responsible  for  its  implementation  is  named.  The 

FRMP  states  that  at  the  time  of  its  publication,  this  database  was  a  restricted  administrative 
tool, but the long-term aim is to make it public on the Geoportal (http://eau.geoportail.lu).  

29   Subsequently Luxembourg described this as an error, which will be addressed in the update of the FRMP in 

December 2021 (there are three levels of priority, see also Annex 1 of this document). 

25 

 
 
 
                                                 
4.8  Progress of implementation of measures 

The  FRMP  (in  its  Annex  I)  lists  three  timeframes  for  measures:  2009-2015  (for  completed 
measures); 2009-2021and 2015-2021. The FRMP indicates that 30 measures (3 % of the 883 

measures) had been completed by 2015, 88 (10 %) have been adopted and are ongoing (mainly 
in  the  timeframe  2015-21),  and  the  great  majority  –  765  measures,  87  %  of  the  total  -  are 

indicated as  proposals  only (still  to  be adopted, and to  be implemented if adopted), although 
the timeframe for most is given as 2015-2021 (a small number seems to have no timeframe).  

Nearly  all  the  measures  completed  –  27  out  of  30  –  were  in  the  area  of  protection.  This, 

however, is  just under 4 % of all 823 protection measures. A further 84 protection measures 
(10 % of total  protection measures) are ongoing, but  the great  majority had not  started  (711, 

86%).  

Only one prevention measure was ongoing, and 17 not started; two preparedness measures had 

been completed and 14 not started; for recovery and review, there is only one measure and it 
had not been started (for more details see Table A8 and Figure A5 in Annex A).  

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

Member States have been asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure 
has  been  implemented.  In  Luxembourg,  measures  have  been  co-ordinated  with  the 

requirements  of  the  WFD.  Measures  were  assessed  in  terms  of  their  relevance  to  the  WFD 
objectives and classified as M1 (synergy between the two Directives – 11 measure types), M2 

(potential  conflict,  requiring  more  detailed  local  assessment–  seven  measure  types)  and  M3 
(not  relevant,  but  may  require  more  detailed  local  assessment  –  seven  measure  types). 

Measures classified as M1 were considered high priority for implementation. The relevance to 
the WFD and the effect of each measure on WFD objectives are listed in Annex I of the FRMP 

as a semi-quantitative assessment (five categories ranging from zero to ++++).  

In  the  context  of  assessing  the  effects  on  the  WFD  objectives,  the  FRMP  states  that  these 
effectiveness  analyses  were  conducted  within  the  scope  of  the  Strategic  Environmental 

Assessment  (SEA),  with  consideration  of  the  effects  on  (i)  the  public  and  health,  (ii)  plants, 
animals and biodiversity, (iii) soil, (iv) water, (v) climate and atmosphere, (vi) landscape, and 

(vii) culture and property. No further details of the effectiveness analysis are provided. 

In addition, IED (Directive 2010/75/EU) and Seveso site risks are indicated on the flood risk 
maps.  The  site  operators  have  a  mandatory  responsibility  to  take  all  reasonable  actions  to 
secure  the  installations  and  to  prevent  any  release  of  substances  from  the  site  in  case  of 

flooding.  No  specific  measures  are  indicated  for  such  sites.  Protection  zones  under  the 

26 

 
 
Drinking Water, Habitats  and Bird directives  are indicated on the FHRMs, although it is  not 
clear how these affected the selection of measures. 

4.10  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

There is reference to a national database (LuxMaPro) which forms the basis for the assessment 

of progress in the implementation of measures. For each measure those bodies responsible for 
its  implementation  (national  or  local  authority,  working  group,  Flood  Management  or  River 

Management  Partnerships)  are  named  together  with  an  agreed  estimated  implementation 
timeline; this database can be consulted by those involved in the implementation of measures 

to check on progress. The information on the database will be reviewed at each reporting cycle 
(every six years) and will form the basis of future planning. 

The baseline (or ‘status quo’) seems to be the finalised flood hazard/risk maps made available 
to the public in 2015. These include the extent of flooding at different hazard scenarios and the 

number  of  people  affected.  As  a  minimum,  the  ‘status  quo’  must  be  maintained,  or 
improvements must be achieved through the implementation of measures. 

4.11  Specific groups of measures 

With regard to spatial planning/land use measures, a number of spatial planning and land use 
measures  are  included/planned,  including  measures  to  prevent  new  buildings  and  establish 

other  land  use  restrictions  in  flood  hazard  areas  (low,  medium  and  high,  as  shown  in  the 
FHRMs).  The  FHRMs  have  legal  status  as  set  out  in  a  regulation  issued  in  2015  under  the 

Luxembourg Water Law of 9.12.2008. According to this law, it is prohibited to designate new 
building developments in flood risk areas. In already designated development areas, it is only 

permitted to proceed with building if there is no flood risk at the site itself and there is no loss 
of any water retention area. Any building projects in areas covered by the three different flood 
risk levels (Q10: every 10 years; Q100: every 100 years; and Qextrem: rare extreme events >100 
years) on the maps require permission from the Minister responsible for water. To sum up, any 

building  and  other  land  uses  in  flood  risk  areas  as  designated  on  the  maps  are  subject  to 
controls  and  legislation  and  enforcement  is  under  direct  responsibility  of  the  national  Water 

Administration (in the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Environment). 

Natural  water  retention  measures  (NWRMs)  have  been  planned  in  catchments30  (three 
measures) and in wetlands31 (725 measures), as well as reductions in impermeable surfaces32 

30   NWRM measure type not clear, but believed to include NWRM measure type NO4 and NO5, (see Annex B 

below). 

31   NWRM measure type NO2, NO5 and NO4, Wetland restoration and management (see Annex B). 
32   NWRM measure type UO3 Permeable surfaces (see Annex B). 

27 

 
 
                                                 
(one  measure),  rainwater  management33  (two  measures)  and  restoration  of  flood  plains34  (16 
measures).  These  measures  are  listed  in  Annex  1  of  the  FRMP,  but  comparison  with  the 
NWRM  types  indicated  in  Annex  B  (below)  is  not  straightforward35  as  the  classification 
systems  are  not  the  same.  Nevertheless,  NWRMs  comprise  the  lion’s  share  (about  90  %)  of 

individual measures. 

Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. Protected areas under the Habitats 
and Birds Directives are indicated on the FHRMs, and reference is made to Natura 2000 sites, 

but it is not clear if or how these have been taken into account when selecting measures.  

With regard to navigation and port infrastructure, navigation on the Mosel and the port at 
Mertert are mentioned in relation to a Seveso site and storage/handling of chemicals, but it is 

not clear if or how these have been taken into account when selecting measures. 

Luxembourg has also reported dredging measures. One measure (sand removal, Luxembourg 
measure M320) is being implemented in APSFR A05, and investigations to check whether the 
measure should be implemented have been proposed for another APSFR, A03.  

4.12  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The  role  of  insurance  policies  is  discussed  in  the  FRMP.  The  FRMP  states  that  it  is  not 
possible  in  Luxembourg  to  take  out  commercial  insurance  against  flood  damage36. 
Consequently,  Luxembourg  Measure  M44  for  financial  preparedness  has  been  proposed  at 
national  level,  with  the  emphasis  on  public  information  to  encourage  the  public  to  put  their 

own measures in place to guard against flood damage; the measure also includes information 
how  to  claim  funds  for  recovery  from  the  State,  but  the  latter  is  possible  only  if  a  national 

disaster has been declared.  

There is no information on environmental liability, except for example Seveso sites, for which 
it  is  stated  that  the  site  operators  have  a  mandatory  responsibility  to  take  all  reasonable 
measures to  secure the installations and to  prevent  any release of substances from  the site in 
case  of  flooding.  There  is  no  information  whether  ecosystem  services  are  considered  in 

33   NWRM measure type UO3, UO4, UO5, UO6, UO7 and UO8. 
34   NWRM measure type N03 Floodplain restoration and management. 
35   Subsequently Luxembourg confirmed that indeed, this comparison was not carried out. This will be addressed 

in the second FRMP. 

36   Luxembourg  subsequently  informed  that  since  June  2017  it  is  possible  to  receive  insurance  against  flood 

damage. 

28 

 
 
                                                 
estimating restoration costs in cases where potentially polluting sites and installations may be 
flooded37.  

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 (RBMP) of the WFD. 

Table 6 

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

second River Basin Management Plan of the WFD  

Integration of FRMP and RBMP into a single plan 

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP  

Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP  

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

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

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

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

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

Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included  

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

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

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

Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD 

LU000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔38 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

As  mentioned  in  the  section  ‘Measures  taken  under  other  Community  Acts’,  measures  have 
been  co-ordinated  with  the  requirements  of  the  WFD,  with  the  emphasis  on  information 

exchange,  consideration  of  the  effectiveness  of  measures  and  shared  advantages  (win-win 
situations)  for  achieving  the  environmental  objectives  of  the  Floods  Directive  and  the  WFD 

(Art.4).  

37   Subsequently Luxembourg confirmed that this aspect was not included in the first FRMP, however it will be 

included in the update of FRMPs. 

38   Not  described  specifically  in  terms  of  permitting,  but  all  measures  in  the  FRMP  are  checked  for 

relevance/compatibility or otherwise with the WFD. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
There is no direct reference to WFD KTMs39, but all FRMP measures have been assessed for 
WFD  relevance  and  effectiveness.  An  example  of  synergy  between  the  objectives  of  the 

Floods  Directive  and  the  WFD  is  given  as  keeping  flood  plains  clear  of  new  buildings  and 
measures for increasing natural water retention; which may be covered by KTMs 6, 7 and 23. 

In the reporting sheets for the Floods Directive, the field concerning WFD measures was filled 
with a series of numbers. It is not clear how these numbers relate to WFD measures40.  

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

The following good practices were identified: 

  The  FRMP  (in  its  Annex  I)  provides  a  semi-quantitative  effectiveness  analysis  of 
measures  with  five  categories  (scale  from  zero  to  ++++)  for  the  effects  on:  flood  risk, 

river flow, and WFD relevance. 

  The majority of individual measures (725 or about 90 %) are NWRMs. 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  There is no information on costs and budgets for measures, nor on funding sources. 

  The FRMP does not have a method for demonstrating how measures will contribute to 
the  objectives  of  the  Floods  Directive  (as  neither  objectives  nor  measures  are  specific 

and measurable). 

  There is no clear prioritisation of individual measures, except in terms of compatibility 

with the WFD objectives. 

39   According to Luxembourg this will be addressed in the update of the FRMP. 
40  Luxembourg  subsequently  acknowledged  that  the  link  between  these  numbers  and  the  KTMs  is  missing  and 

will address this in the update of the FRMP. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.  Consideration of climate change 

Climate  change  impacts  are  discussed  in  the  FRMP  and  the  effects  on  river  flows  at  the 

different risk scenarios have been estimated in terms of percentage change in river flows at 10 
locations. On average the estimated increase in river flow amounted to 7-9 % for the different 

risk scenarios (High, medium, low risk), with maximum increases of 18-19 %. These increases 
do  not  seem  to  have  been  included  in  the  current  maps  (published  in  2015),  as  they  are 

predictions for 2021-2050. These predictions of the river flows for the period 2021-2050 were 
based on data from the years 1971-2000 and simulations. 

There is  no reference to the national adaptation  strategy41, adopted in  201142, or information 
about a shift in the occurrence of extreme events and changes in numerical recurrence times. 

Apart  from  a  measure  for  investigations  into  the  effects  of  climate  change  (M509,  national 

level), no specific measures seem to have been planned directly in relation to mitigation of the 
impact of climate change. 

5.1  Specific types of measures planned to address expected effects of 
climate change 

There  is  no  indication  that  the  additional  risk  due  to  climate  change  has  been  taken  into 

account so far or what specific measures have been planned to mitigate its impacts. 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate 
change 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The effect of climate change on river flows has been investigated and estimated for the 
period 2021-2050, in terms of percentage change in river flows at 10 locations (as fluvial 
flooding is the only type considered relevant), and further investigations are planned. 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  No reference to the national climate change adaptation strategy. 

  The potential change on flood risk, as a consequence of climate change, does not seem to 

have been taken into account when defining objectives and measures. 

41   Luxembourg subsequently described this as an omission which will be addressed in the update of the FRMP in 

December 2021. 

42   See http://environnement.public.lu/fr/klima-an-energie/changement-climatique.html 

31 

 
 
                                                 
6.  Cost-benefit analysis 

The  FRMP  states  clearly  that  no  CBA  has  been  carried  out.  Instead  a  semi-quantitative 

effectiveness  analysis  was  carried  out  for  each  measure  in  the  particular  situation  of  each 
APSFR,  taking  into  account  the  effort  invested  and  the  benefit  of  implementing  measures. 

Firstly,  economic  considerations  were  included  when  assessing  the  effectiveness  of  each 
measure  in  each  particular  situation.  Secondly,  the  effectiveness  in  terms  of  achieving  WFD 

objectives  was  considered.  To  evaluate  the  feasibility  of  implementing  measures,  flood  risk 
reductions and improvements in the risk management were taken into account, as well as WFD 

relevance. The results of the analysis are listed against each measure in Annex 1 of the FRMP, 
using five categories on  a scale of ‘zero to  ++++’ for each of the effects  on flood risk, river 

flow,  and  WFD  relevance  (this  information  is  also  summarised  in  the  main  report  of  the 
FRMP). 

No details concerning trans-boundary cost-benefit or effectiveness  analyses are provided, but 

overall there is close co-operation with the International Commissions for the Protection of the 
Mosel/Saar  (ICPMS)  and  the  Rhine  (ICPR),  and  in  particular  the  application  of  the  German 
LAWA catalogue of measures. 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following good practice was identified: 

  A  semi-quantitative  effectiveness  analysis  was  carried  out  for  each  measure  in  the 
particular  situation  of  each  APSFR,  and  it  included  consideration  of  the  relevance  of 
measures to the achievement of WFD objectives. 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  No CBA was carried out. 

32 

 
 
 
 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1  Competent authorities 

Based  on  Luxembourg’s  FRMP  and  its  reporting  sheet,  the  Competent  Authorities  and  the 

UoMs  identified  for  the  Floods  Directive  have  not  been  altered.  Documents  reported  to  the 
European Commission on this subject have not been updated since they were reported in 2010. 

Overall  responsibility  for  the  implementation  of  both  the  Floods  and  the  Water  Framework 
Directives lies with the Administration for Water Management in the Ministry for Sustainable 

Development, but relevant local authorities, Flood Management Partnerships, described below, 
and other stakeholders also play a large part in flood risk management. 

7.2  Public information and consultation 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  public  and  interested  parties  were  informed  in  the  UoM 
assessed concerning the draft FRMP. Information on how the consultation was actually carried 

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

Table 7 

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

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking 

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

LU000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

For an initial early public consultation from December 2010 to April 2011, the draft FHRMs 
were made available to the public on the government’s Geoportal website, and paper copies as 
well  as  digital  versions  were  sent  to  the  relevant  Local  Community  Administrations. 

Information and discussion fora were held to encourage active involvement by joining Flood 
Management  Partnerships.  Following  publication  of  the  draft  FRMP  (with  the  FHRMs  also 
provided),  public  consultation  continued:  the  public  was  informed  through  four  daily 
newspapers and two government internet sites. In addition, two public meetings were held by 

invitation of the Environment Minister at two different locations in January 2015. 

33 

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

Table 8 

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  

Flood Management Partnerships 

LU000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

Public  consultation  was  designed  to  involve  stakeholders  and  relevant  authorities  and 

associations at an early stage of the planning process (starting in 2010/11) and involved three 
parts,  i.e.  (i)  dissemination  of  information,  (ii)  active  participation  and  (iii)  formal  hearings. 

Flood Management Partnerships were formed for specific river sections to actively participate 
in drafting the FRMP. 

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

Table 9 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  

Direct mailing (post)  

Paper copies distributed at exhibitions  

LU000 

✔ 

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

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

Downloadable  electronic  versions  and  paper  copies  were  provided,  and  their  existence  was 
publicised through government internet pages, daily papers and meetings. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders 

As  part  of  the  overall  consultation,  authorities  should  encourage  the  active  involvement  of 
stakeholders.  The  table  below  shows  the  groups  of  stakeholders  that  have  been  actively 

involved in the development of the FRMP assessed: 

Table 10 

Groups of stakeholders actively involved in the development of the FRMP 

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

Flood Warning / Defence Authorities  

Drainage Authorities  

Emergency services  

Water supply and sanitation  

Agriculture / farmers  

Energy / hydropower  

Navigation / ports  

Fisheries / aquaculture  

Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) 

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

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  

Academia / Research Institutions  

National Administration for Nature and Forestry 

Flood and River Management Partnerships 

Source: FRMP 

LU000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

In addition to the official bodies listed above in the table, five Flood Management Partnerships 

(transboundary co-operation on flood risk management via community-based networks) were 
formed  for  all  main  river  stretches(three  of  these  are  transboundary),  through  voluntary 

association  of  relevant  local  authorities,  official  bodies  and  other  stakeholders  (e.g. 
representatives  of  potentially  affected  industries,  energy  providers,  local  authority  planning 

and waterway maintenance departments, etc.). Information and discussion fora were organised 
to encourage active involvement within these new partnerships, as well as within the two pre-

existing River Management Partnerships. Public participation (including active involvement in 
the  selection  of  measures)  was  in  part  organised  through  River  or  Flood  Management 
Partnerships;  the  latter  were  supported  by  the  International  Support  Centre  for  Flood 
Partnerships  at  the  ICPMS  offices  in  Trier,  Germany.  However,  the  bodies  and  private 

individuals could equally have been involved outside of these the Partnerships.  

35 

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

Table 11 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders  

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory groups  

Involvement in drafting  

Workshops and technical meetings 

Formation of alliances  

Source: FRMP 

LU000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The newly formed Flood Management Partnerships were actively involved in the preparation 
of  the  FRMP  and  remain  involved  in  its  implementation  and  provided  community-based 

advisory  groups.  By  December  2015,  10  workshops  on  the  FRMP  had  been  held  for  Flood 
Management Partnerships, each with a specific theme and tasks/programme of work. As part 

of  these  workshop  programmes,  the  shortcomings  and  action  requirements  were  worked  out, 
including proposals for measures. In addition, the list of measures proposed in these workshops 

was sent to all local authorities in flood risk areas, asking them to comment and if appropriate 
suggest  further  measures.  Staff  from  the  Regional  Water  Management  Administration  were 
available to advise the Partnerships and local authorities. 

7.4  Effects of consultation 

The table below shows the effects of consultation: 

Table 12 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders  

Changes to selection of measures 

Adjustment to specific measures 

Addition of new information 

Changes to the methodology used 

Commitment to further research 

LU000 
✔ 

✔ 

Commitment to action in the next FRMP cycle 

Comments and results of the FHRM consultation were incorporated 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

The  proposal/selection  of  measures  was  part  of  the  active  involvement  of  the  public 

consultation,  particularly 
the  Flood  Management 
through  workshops  organised  for 
Partnerships,  and  consultation  of  local  authorities  in  flood  risk  areas.  The  results  of  these 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
workshops  including  proposed  measures  were  largely  incorporated  in  the  FRMP.  Following 
the second phase of public consultation in 2014/15, written comments on the draft FRMP were 

received  from  59  local  administrations,  the  Chamber  of  Agriculture,  the  River  Basin 
Partnership  of  the  Upper  Alzette,  the  Partnership  for  the  river  Syr,  and  a  small  number  of 

private individuals. Of the written submissions, 22 were positive without further comments, 40 
were  positive  with  comments,  and  five  were  negative.  All  comments  were  examined  and 

incorporated into the revised FRMP 2015 where relevant. No further details are available. 

Comments received as a result of the initial consultation of the draft FHRMs in 2010/11 were 
also examined and incorporated into the final draft FHRMs which were made available to the 

public in 2014, together with the draft FRMP. For example, following public consultation and 
reference  to  updated  data,  some  recalculations  were  performed  on  some  of  the  maps,  and 

localised adjustments were made in some APSFRs.  In addition, the legend of the Flood Risk 
Maps  was  simplified.  The  maps  were  updated  accordingly  into  those  made  available  to  the 

public in 2014.  

7.5  Strategic Environmental Assessment 

The  FRMP  has  undergone  an  SEA  procedure,  particularly  to  assess  the  effects  on  the  WFD 

objectives (for details see section 4), however no further details are provided. 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding 
Governance 

The following good practices were identified: 

  Overall  responsibility  for  the  implementation  of  both  the  Floods  and  the  Water 
Framework  Directives  lies  with  the  Administration  for  Water  Management  in  the 

Ministry  for  Sustainable  Development,  but  relevant  Local  Authorities,  Flood 
Management  Partnerships  and  other  stakeholders  also  play  a  large  part  in  flood  risk 

management.  

  The  Flood  Management  Partnerships  provided  a  mechanism  for  local  stakeholder 
involvement in flood risk management, also promoting transboundary co-operation.  

  The  public  consultation  involved  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  and  consisted  of  (i) 
provision  of  information,  (ii)  active  involvement  in  the  preparation  of  the  FRMP  and 
selection  of  measures  and  continuing  involvement  in  implementing  measures,  and  (iii) 

formal hearings. 

  The results of active involvement and wider consultation were largely incorporated into 

the FRMP, and included changes made in response to the public consultation. 

37 

 
 
 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

This  Annex  gives  an  overview  of  the  data  on  measures  reported  by  Luxembourg  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)43, 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 done 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. 

 

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

38 

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

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

Types of measures used in reporting 

The following table44 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 
M22: Removal or relocation 
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 

PREPAREDNESS 
M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning 
M42: Emergency response planning 
M43: Public Awareness 
M44: Other preparedness 

RECOVERY & REVIEW 
M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery 
M52: Environmental recovery 
M53: Other recovery  

OTHER MEASURES 
M61: Other measures 

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

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

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1:Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ............. 43 
Figure A2: Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect .............. 43 
Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A5: Geographic coverage by measure aspect ................... 46 
Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A6: Category of priority by measure aspect ..................... 47 
Figure A5: Visualisation of Table A7: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ......... 49 

Table A1: Total number of measures ....................................................................................... 41 
Table A2: Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM ................................. 41 
Table A3: Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM ................................ 41 
Table A4: Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, 
including duplicates ................................................................................................................. 42 
Table A5: Geographic coverage by measure aspect ................................................................ 45 
Table A6: Category of priority by measure aspect .................................................................. 47 
Table A7: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ...................................................... 49 

40 

 
 
 
 
Measures overview 

Table A1 

Total number of measures 

Number of individual measures 
Number of individual measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one 
measure type 
Number of aggregated measures  
Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one 
measure type 
Total number of measures45 
Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one 
measure type 
Range of number of measures between UoMs, including measures which have been allocated to 
more than one measure type (Min-Max) 

813 

813 

70 

70 

883 

883 

0 - 883 

Table A2: 

Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM 

Prevention 

Protection 

Prepared-
ness 

Recovery 
& review 

Other  Grand 
Total 

M21  M22  M23  M31  M32  M33  M34 
24 

733 

21 

27 

1 

5 

M41 
1 

1 

LU000 
Grand 
Total 
Note: Luxembourg reported information only for one UoM (the second UoM in Luxembourg 

813 

733 

813 

21 

27 

24 

1 

1 

5 

1 

0 

0 

does not contain APSFRs). 

Table A3: 

Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

M21  M22  M23  M31  M32  M33  M34  M41  M42  M43 

Recovery & 
review 
M51 
1 

Other  Grand 
Total 

M61 
25 

5 

1 

5 

LU000 
Grand 
Total 
Note: Luxembourg reported information only for one UoM (the second UoM in Luxembourg 

70 

70 

12 

12 

25 

5 

1 

1 

5 

5 

3 

2 

1 

3 

2 

5 

8 

2 

8 

2 

1 

does not contain APSFRs). 

45   Luxembourg reported measures for one UoM, its other UoM does not contain APSFRs 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A4: 

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

Prevention 

Total 

Protection 

Total 

Preparedness 

Aggregate  Individual 

Aggregate  Individual 

Aggregate  Individual 

LU000 
Grand 
Total 

11 

11 

7 

7 

18 

18 

18 

18 

805 

805 

823 

823 

15 

15 

1 

1 

Total 

16 

16 

Recovery 
&review 
Aggregate 
1 

1 

Total 

1 

1 

Other 

Aggregate 
25 

25 

Total 

Grand 
Total 

25 

25 

883 

883 

Note: Luxembourg reported information only for one UoM (the second UoM in Luxembourg does not contain APSFRs). 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
The information in Table A5 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: 

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

Note: Luxembourg reported information only for one UoM (the second UoM in Luxembourg 
does not contain APSFRs). 

Figure A2: 

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

Note: Luxembourg reported information only for one UoM (the second UoM in Luxembourg 
does not contain APSFRs). 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

  Cost explanation (optional field). 

Luxembourg  did  not  report  any  costs  or  cost  explanations  for  the  measures  in  the  reporting 

sheets. 

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); 

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

Location of measures 

Luxembourg provided information  for the location of all the measures, however, this was an 

open question, and as such, a large number of different responses was given. It  was thus not 
practical to aggregate the information.  

Geographic coverage 

Luxembourg  provided  information  about  the  geographic  coverage  of  the  effects  of  all 

measures. The reported coverage concerned primarily different APSFRs as summarised in the 
following tables. 

44 

 
 
 
Table A5: 

 Geographic coverage by measure aspect 

HWR
M 
11 
18 
15 

RB_000 
A01 
2 
43 
1 

RB_000 
A02 
1 
52 

RB_000 
A03 
2 
221 

Prevention 
Protection 
Preparedness 
Recovery & 
review 
Other 
Grand Total 
Notes: Luxembourg reported information for only one UoM (LU000). 

25 
70 

223 

24 

53 

53 

46 

16 

24 

53 

16 

1 

RB_000 
A04 

RB_000 
A05 

RB_000 
A06 

RB_000 
A07 

RB_000 
A08 

RB_000 
A09 

RB_000 
A10 

RB_000 
A11 

RB_000 
A12 

RB_000 
A13 

68 

70 

83 

27 

47 

8 

11 

RB_000 
A14 
2 
28 

RB_000 
A15 

RB_0
01 

41 

13 

Grand 
Total 
18 
823 
16 

1 

25 
883 

68 

70 

83 

27 

47 

8 

11 

30 

41 

13 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A3: 

 Visualisation of Table A6: Geographic coverage by measure aspect 

Notes: Luxembourg reported information for only one UoM (LU000). 

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 

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

Category of priority 

The following categories are used to classify the priority of the measures in the reporting sheet: 

  Critical; 

  Very high; 

  High; 

  Moderate; 

46 

 
 
  Low. 

Luxembourg  reported  the  priority  of  all  measures  as  ‘Very  high’46,  although  there  are  three 
levels  of  priority  described  in  the  FRMP  (one  to  three  and  zero  for  measures  already 

implemented). Annex 1 of the FRMP lists most measures as priority level 1, and some as zero.  

Table A6: 

Category of priority by measure aspect 

Very high 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Other 

Grand Total 

18 

823 

16 

1 

25 

883 

18 

823 

16 

1 

25 

883 

Notes: Luxembourg reported information for only one UoM (LU000). 

Figure A4:  Visualisation of Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect 

Notes: Luxembourg reported information for only one UoM (LU000). 

46   Subsequently  Luxembourg described this as an error which  will be addressed in the update  of the FRMP in 

December 2021. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Timetable 

Luxembourg  did  not  report  any  information  about  the  timetable  of  the  measures  in  the 
reporting sheets.47 

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). 

Luxembourg did not provide any information about the responsible authorities or level of their 
responsibility  for  the  measures  in  the  reporting  sheets48,  although  individual  measures  are 
allocated in Annex 1, for example as national, or a specific municipality or partnership. 

Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

whose responses are analysed below 

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

text question whose answers are not analysed here. 

The progress of implementation was reported as49: 

  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.  

47   Luxembourg indicated subsequently that this will be addressed in the next reporting cycle 
48   Luxembourg indicated subsequently that this information will be updated in the FRMP in December 2021 
49   Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

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

48 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Table A7: 

Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 
Recovery & 
review 
Other 

Grand Total 

Completed 

Ongoing 
construction 
1 

27 

2 

1 

30 

84 

2 

87 

Progress ongoing  Not started 

Grand Total 

1 

1 

17 

711 

14 

1 

22 

765 

18 

823 

16 

1 

25 

883 

Notes: Luxembourg reported information for only one UoM (LU000). 

Figure A5: 

 Visualisation of Table A8: Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Notes: Luxembourg reported information for only one UoM (LU000). 

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). 

49 

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

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

provided any advisory session yet. 

  Progress on-going (POG) means the advisory services are operational and are being 

used. This is expected to be the situation for all multi- annual long/mid-term 
advisory services that are expected to be operational during the whole or most of 
RBMP cycle. 

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

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

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

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

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

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

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

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

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

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

not been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

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

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed (COM) means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the 
license or permit has been issued; the regulation has been adopted, etc.). If the 
measure 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 Act associated to the measures reported (optional field); 

  Any other information reported (optional field). 

Luxembourg did not report any information for these fields in the reporting sheets. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures50 

No Action 

M11 

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

Prevention 

Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone 
areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation 
Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to relocate 
receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard 
Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a 
flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc... 

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

Protection 

Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the flow 
into natural or artificial drainage systems, such as overland flow interceptors and / or storage, 
enhancement of infiltration, etc and including in-channel, floodplain works and the reforestation of 
banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water. 

Protection, Water flow regulation, Measures involving physical interventions to regulate flows, such as 
the construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line 
storage areas or development of existing flow regulation rules), and which have a significant impact on 
the hydrological regime. 

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

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

M21 

M22 

M23 

M24 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

M35 

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

Preparedness 

M41 

M42 

M43 

M44 

Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or 
warning system 
Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish or 
enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning 
Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public 
awareness or preparedness for flood events 
Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to establish or enhance preparedness for flood events 
to reduce adverse consequences 

Recovery & Review 

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

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

51 

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

Recovery and Review, Environmental recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (with several sub-
topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous materials containers) 

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

Other 

Other 

M51 

M52 

M53 

M61 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) 

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, 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 
F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

F02 Maintenance of forest 
cover in headwater areas 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

A03 Crop rotation 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U03 Permeable surfaces 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

A07 Low till agriculture 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 
features 

U05 Channels and rills 

U06 Filter Strips 

U07 Soakaways 

52 

 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

A08 Green cover 

Forest 
F08 Appropriate design of 
roads and stream 
crossings 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

N08 Riverbed material re-
naturalisation 

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches 

A09 Early sowing 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

A10 Traditional 
terracing 
A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 
A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

F11 Urban forest parks 

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 
N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

U09 Rain Gardens 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

N12 Lake restoration 

U12 Infiltration basins 

A13 Mulching 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu  

53