COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Czech Republic Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSSION 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: Czechia, 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) 59 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Czech Republic Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSSION 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) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

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

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

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

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

Good Practices...................................................................................................................... 10 

Areas for further development ............................................................................................. 11 

Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 11 

1.  Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment .......................... 13 

1.1  Reporting of the FRMPs ........................................................................................... 13 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs ........................................................................................ 13 

2. 

 Integration of previously reported information ................................................................ 14 

2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment............................... 14 

2.2 

Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs ................... 14 

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas .................................................. 15 

2.4  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk 
maps   ................................................................................................................................... 16 

2.5  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding 
integration of previously reported information .................................................................... 16 

3. 

 Setting of Objectives ........................................................................................................ 17 

3.1 

3.2 

Focus of objectives .................................................................................................... 17 

Specific and measurable objectives ........................................................................... 17 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods .......................................... 18 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding ............................ 18 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives .............................................................................. 18 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ...... 18 

4. 

 Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ....................................................... 19 

4.1  Cost of measures ....................................................................................................... 20 

4.2 

Funding of measures ................................................................................................. 20 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures ........................................... 21 

4.4  Measures and objectives............................................................................................ 21 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures ................................................................... 21 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures .......................................................................................... 22 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures .......................................... 22 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures .................................................................. 22 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts .......................................................... 23 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ...................................................................................... 23 

1 

 
4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding ................................................................. 23 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ..................................................... 23 

4.13  Coordination with the WFD ...................................................................................... 24 

5. Consideration of climate change ........................................................................................... 26 

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change ............................ 26 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change ........ 26 

6. Cost-benefit analysis ............................................................................................................. 27 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development concerning cost-benefit analysis 27 

7. 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation28 

7.1  Competent authorities ............................................................................................... 28 

7.2 

Public information and consultation ......................................................................... 28 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders ......................................................................... 29 

7.4 

7.5 

Effects of consultation ............................................................................................... 31 

Strategic Environmental Assessment ........................................................................ 31 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ............... 31 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 32 

Background & method ......................................................................................................... 32 

Types of measures used in reporting .................................................................................... 33 

List of Annex A tables & figures ......................................................................................... 34 

Measures overview ............................................................................................................... 35 

Measure details: cost ............................................................................................................ 37 

Measure details: name & location ........................................................................................ 38 

Measure details: objectives .................................................................................................. 38 

Measure details: authorities .................................................................................................. 40 

Measure details: progress ..................................................................................................... 42 

Measure details: other .......................................................................................................... 45 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types .................................................................................... 46 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) ................................................ 47 

2 

 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

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

Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 
Cost-Benefit Analysis 
European Environment Agency 
Floods Directive 
Flood Hazard 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 

3 

 
 
 
Introduction 

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

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

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

Assessments (PFRAs) to identify the river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding (Areas of 
Potential  Significant  Flood  Risk  –  APSFRs).  By  the  end  of  20,  Flood  Hazard  &  Risk  Maps 

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

This  report  assesses  the  FRMPs  for  the  Czech  Republic1.  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 

  The  three  FRMPs  reported  by  the  Czech  Republic  for  its  three  Units  of  Management 

(UoMs).  

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

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
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) as presented in the 2012 RBMP assessment reports 

The  Czech  Republic  has  designated  three  UoMs  under  the  FD:  these  correspond  to  the  river 
basin  districts  (RBDs)  designated  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD).  All  three 

UoMs are part of international UoMs/RBDs.  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  the  Czech  Republic,  there  are  three  levels  of  flood  risk  management  plans3:  level  A, 
international plans prepared by the international river basin commissions for the Elbe, Danube 

and  Oder;  level  B,  national  plans  for  these  three  UoMs,  prepared  by  the  Ministry  of 
Environment  and  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture;  and  level  C,  sub-basin  plans  which  consist  of 

documents for APSFRs as annexes prepared by the river basin authorities in cooperation with 
regional  authorities  and  with  the  two  ministries.  Three  level  B  national  plans  have  been 

developed  for  the  APSFRs  in  line  with  the  FD  and  these  have  been  reported  to  WISE,  as 
described below. The level C sub-basin plans deal with other flood risk areas which have not 

been assigned as APSFRs; moreover, the level  C plans address both river basin management 
and flood risk management.  

The  three  national  plans  (Elbe,  Danube  and  Oder)  have  an  identical  structure,  and  the  same 

methods and approaches were used for all three plans. The only differences are in terms of the 
number of APSFRs in each UoM and the number of measures applied. 

The Government of the Czech Republic approved all three FRMPs by Resolution 1082 on 21 
December 2015.  

The  table  below  gives  an  overview  of  all  UoMs  in  the  Czech  Republic,  including  the  UoM 

code, the name, and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if all documents required 
for each UoM were submitted to European Environment Agency’s (EEA) Water Information 
System for Europe (WISE)4 – the FRMP as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML.  

Table 1 

Overview of UoM in Czech Republic 

UoM 

CZ1000 

CZ5000 

CZ6000 

TOTAL 

Names 

Danube 

Elbe 

Oder 

Number of APSFRs 

XML Reported 

PDF Reported 

125 

123 

21 

269 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web page: 

  http://www.povis.cz/html/index.html?pzpr.htm 

3  The RBMPs also follow these three levels. 
4  http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/603/deliveries?id=603&tab=deliveries&d-4014547-p=1&d-4014547-

o=2&d-4014547-s=3  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview of the assessment 

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

The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: 

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

not met; 

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

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

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

FRMP to address the criterion. 

Table 2 

Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

FRM objectives have been 
established  

Strong evidence 

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of potential 
adverse consequences  

Strong evidence  

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

Strong evidence  

...to non-structural initiatives   Strong evidence  

The strategic objectives of all three FRMPs 
are to reduce the likelihood of flood risk and 
to reduce the potential adverse consequences 
of flooding on human health, the 
environment, cultural heritage, infrastructure 
and economic activity.  

FRMPs also present three specific objectives: 
1) avoiding new risks and reducing areas at 
unacceptable risk (through application of 
flood prevention in land use planning); 2) 
reducing flood dangers; and 3) raising 
preparedness of population and strengthening 
of resilience. 

As noted above, one of the two strategic 
objectives of the three FRMPs is the 
reduction of the potential adverse 
consequences of flooding. 

The other strategic objective of all three 
FRMPs is the reduction in the likelihood of 
flood risk. 

The specific objectives include non-structural 
initiatives, in particular raising preparedness 

7 

 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

of population and strengthening of resilience 
(including through local flood action plans, 
sound contingency planning and flood 
forecasting and warning services). 

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

...human health  

Strong evidence  

As noted above, one of the two strategic 
objectives of all three FRMPs is the reduction 
of potential adverse consequences of flooding 
on human health, the environment, cultural 
heritage, infrastructure and economic activity. 

...economic activity  

Strong evidence  

See above under human health. 

...environment  

Strong evidence  

See above under human health. 

...cultural heritage  

Strong evidence  

See above under human health. 

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence  

...prioritised  

Strong evidence  

The Czech Republic has reported to WISE 6 
individual and 55 aggregated measures, with 
a total of 61 measures.  

The Czech FRMPs refer instead to general 
and concrete measures (and provide a 
different total). Concrete measures are for the 
most part construction measures; general 
measures are non-structural measures.  

The Czech Republic indicated the priority of 
all 61 measures reported.  

The FRMPs state that the priority of concrete 
measures was set by expert judgment, but do 
not provide further information. 

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

...costs & benefits  

Some evidence  

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

Limited information is provided about the use 
of cost benefit analysis5. 

The preliminary flood risk assessment in the 
Czech Republic was based on a spatial 
analysis of floods with recurrence Q5, Q20 
and Q100. The two aspects applied were (i) 
the number of permanent residents affected 

5  The Czech Republic subsequently informed that cost benefit analysis is one of the references considered under 
the national financing programme, Flood Prevention Programme III, before measures are agreed for financing. 

8 

 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...flood conveyance  

Some evidence  

...water retention  

Strong evidence  

...environmental objectives 
of the WFD  

Strong evidence  

...spatial planning/land use   Strong evidence  

...nature conservation  

No evidence  

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

No evidence  

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Some evidence  

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Strong evidence  

Coordination ensured with 
WFD  

Strong evidence  

by the flood extent in floodplains and (ii) the 
value of property affected by the flood extent 
in floodplains for return periods of 5, 20 and 
100 years. 

Flood conveyance routes were used during 
flood hazard and risk mapping. 

The three Czech FRMPs refer to natural 
water retention measures (NWRM): concrete 
measures include flood retention by polders 
and reservoirs.  

Flood reduction measures are designed with 
the aim of respecting the environmental 
objectives of the WFD. 

FRMP specific objectives include avoiding 
new risks and reducing areas at unacceptable 
risk through application of flood prevention 
in land use planning. The general prevention 
measures reported in the three FRMPs 
include land use and spatial planning.  

No information was found in the FRMPs or 
the reporting sheets.  

No information was found in the FRMPs or 
the reporting sheets. 

The FRMPs report that studies of climate 
impacts indicate that climate change will not 
have a significant impact on future flood 
characteristics in the Czech Republic.  

For all three Flood Risk Management Plans, 
international cooperation for implementation 
of the FD took place via international river 
basin commissions. 

The FRMPs include a description of the 
coordination process with the WFD. Flood 
reduction measures are designed with the aim 
of respecting the environmental objectives of 
the WFD. 

9 

 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Some evidence  

Supporting workshops addressing different 
elements of FRMPs were organized before 
publishing the draft FRMPs and further 
workshops took place in early 2015 after their 
publishing. Representatives of the Ministry of 
Environment, river basin authorities, regional 
authorities and experts attended. 

Good Practices 

The assessment identified the following good practices in the Czech FRMPs. 

Table 3 

Good practices in the Czech FRMPs 

Topic area 

Good practices identified 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk.  

The level C sub-basin plans deal with other flood risk areas which 
have not been assigned as areas of potentially significant flood risk.  

FRMPs describe and build on the objectives for the management of 
flood risk in previous planning documents (Plan for major river 
basins approved by the Governmental resolution 562 in 2007 and 
Strategy for flood protection approved by the Governmental 
resolution 382 in 2000), which included natural water retention 
initiatives.  

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

The FRMPs provide information on the costs of “concrete” 
measures (overall budgets and information on the cost components – 
whether investment or operational costs are included is, however, 
not clarified).  

FRMPs provide information on the measures from the previous 
plans (river basin management plans- in 2009 contained flood risk 
management measures).  

To monitor the implementation of the FRMP measures, the 
effectiveness of the planned measures will be evaluated in all 
APSFRs through an analysis of FHR maps at the end of the flood 
risk management planning period, based on eight criteria. 

The Czech Republic has prepared separate reports that provide an 
overview of the consultation process for each FRMP, indicating how 
each comment is addressed. 

The level C sub-basin plans address both river basin management 
and flood risk management. 

10 

Public consultation 

Flood risk governance 

 
 
 
Areas for further development 

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

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Czech FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

Although all relevant sources of flood (fluvial, pluvial, groundwater, 
artificial water bearing structures) were assessed, the APSFR and 
FHR maps do not distinguish between flood sources.  

The national FRMPs provide little information on coordination with 
neighbouring Member States on the PFRA and FHRM stages (this 
information is instead available in the international FRMPs, and the 
international RBD commissions were a key forum for coordination). 

The objectives are not specific or measurable.  

The Czech Republic did not report on the timetable of any of the 
measures.  

Few details are provided on nature based solutions (e.g. NWRMs) 
and no information is provided on how nature protection is 
addressed. 

The reporting of measures to the European Commission does not 
match information in the FRMPs: notably, the total number of 
measures differs.6  

No apparent coordination with national climate change adaptation 
strategy. 

Limited information on cost benefit analysis was provided in 
national FRMPs. 

Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk.  

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

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed. 

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

Recommendations 

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

  To  be  able  to  assess  progress,  the  objectives  should  be,  to  the  extent  possible,  specific, 

measurable and linked to specific measures that can achieve the objectives.  

6  The Czech authorities clarified subsequently that measures which are planned for various localities in one sub-

basin (e.g. construction of polders, streambed re-naturalization) were reported as one aggregated measure. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
  Further  study  on  the  impacts  of  climate  change  on  flood  risks  should  be  carried  out. 
Coordination  between  the  national  climate  change  adaptation  strategy  and  the  FRMPs 
should be ensured or elaborated upon. 

  Cost  estimates  for  each  measure  (including  non-structural)  and  an  overall  budget  for  all 
measures  should  be  provided,  indicating  whether  the  budget  covers  both  investment  and 

operational costs.  

  The FRMPs should present a planned timetable of measures.  

  The  method  for  the  prioritisation  of  measures  should  be  described.  The  FRMPs  should 
provide clear information on the methods used to assess costs and benefits of measures. 

  More details on planned nature based solutions should be provided. 

12 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

The Czech Republic reported three national FRMPs: for the Czech portions of the Elbe (Labe 
in  Czech,  CZ5000),  Danube  (Dunaj,  CZ1000)  and  Oder  (Odra,  CZ6000)  UoMs.  The  three 

FRMPs  have  an  identical  structure  and  the  same  methods  and  approaches  were  used  for  all 
plans.  

The Czech Republic did not make use of Article 13.3 of the FD, which allows Member States 

to make use of previous flood risk management plans (provided their content is equivalent to 
the requirements set out in the Directive). 

Concerning the geographic coverage of the three FRMPs reported, there is one FRMP covering 
each entire UoM.  In addition,  other documents have been reported for some of the UoMs as 

annexes and/or background documents. 

The Czech Republic refers to three levels of flood risk management, of which the three FRMPs 
reported  are  at  the  middle  level.  Level  A  refers  to  the  international  FRMPs  prepared  by  the 

international river basin commissions (all three Czech UoMs – Elbe, Danube, and Oder – are 
part  of  international  UoMs);  level  B,  the  three  national  plans  reported;  and  level  C,  10  sub-

basin  plans.  The  level  C  sub-basin  plans,  integrating  flood  risk  management  and  river  basin 
management, deal with other flood risk areas which have not been assigned as the APSFR.  

1.2 Assessment of the FRMPs 

The Czech Republic has prepared three FRMPs for its three UoMs: 

Table 5 

UoMs assessed in Czech Republic  

UoM code 

CZ1000 

CZ5000 

CZ6000 

UoM Name 

DANUBE 

ELBE 

ODER 

The  assessment  covered  the  three  national-level  FRMPs  (level  B)  for  these  UoMs:  these 

FRMPs were reported to WISE. The assessment refers to the international (level A) FRMPs for 
some information; the sub-basin plans (level C) were not assessed.  

13 

 
 
 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

The conclusions of the PFRA are presented in all three FRMPs as a textual description, map 
and  a  table  listing  all  APSFRs7.  All  three  Czech  FRMPs  provide  a  link  to  the  Czech  Flood 
Information System, POVIS (http://www.povis.cz), which contains river APSFR maps for all 
three UoMs8. 

The preliminary flood risk assessment in the Czech Republic was based on a spatial analysis of 

floods with recurrence Q5, Q20 and Q100 using the data from rivers in the inundation areas. 
The  two  aspects  applied  were  (i)  the  number  of  permanent  residents  affected  by  the  flood 

extent in floodplains and (ii) the value of property aggrieved by the flood extent in floodplains 
for return periods of 5, 20 and 100 years. The adverse consequences were assessed with regard 
to human health, environment, cultural heritage and economic activity9. 

An analysis of conveyance routes is included in the FRMPs in the form of flood extent maps 

for Q5, Q20, Q100 and Q500.  

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

For  all  three  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans,  international  cooperation  took  place  via  the 
international river basin commissions, including the development of the PFRAs10. 

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

FHRMs were prepared for APSFRs. No further information is available in the FRMP11. 

2.2 

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

The FRMPs contain examples of FHRMs with a descriptive text and they contain also tables 

with links to all FHRMs (presented at http://cds.chmi.cz) in their Annexes 8.2 and 8.3 (scalable 
river maps showing flood hazard and flood risk). The FHRMs do not distinguish among flood 
sources and there is no indication in the FRMPs which flood types were addressed12. However, 
according to the Czech PFRA report (available on the website of the Czech flood information 

7  Flood Risk Management Plans chapter 3.5, map 3.4 and Annex 8.1. 
8  FRMPs Chapter 7.1 
9  FRMPs Chapter 3.5. 
10 FRMPs Chapter 7.2. 
11 FRMPs Chapter 4.1. 
12 The Czech authorities clarified subsequently that the FHR maps represent fluvial flooding, since this is the most 
significant  flood  source  in  the  Czech  Republic.  The  maps  are  a  combination  of  primarily  two  mechanisms 
(natural  exceedance  and  defence  exceedance).  There  is  no  defence  or  infrastructural  failure  included  in  the 
maps. 

14 

 
                                                 
system), fluvial, pluvial and groundwater floods as well as floods from artificial water-bearing 
infrastructure (dams) were addressed in the assessment of the risk of flooding under Article 4 
and therefore used for FHRM preparation13. 

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

In all three FRMPls, international cooperation in FD implementation under international river 

basin commissions is mentioned. This includes preparation of basin-level reports on the PFRA. 
No further details are available in the Czech Republic’s FRMPs, including on whether shared 

flood risk areas have been identified. Coordinated FHR maps for the Danube are available at 
the ICPDR website14, those for the Elbe at the IKSE website15 and a description of FHRMs is 
also available in the international Oder FRMP16. 

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

In  all  the  FRMPs,  FHRMs  have  been  used  to  develop  the  FRMPs.  Based  on  the  reporting 

sheets and the FRMPs: 

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

activities, assets);  

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

  Specific objectives on flood risk reduction have been defined based on the FHRM; 

  Measures have been defined based on the FHRM. 

During their preparation, FHRMs were submitted to public consultation at over 15 workshops. 

The FRMPs state that FHRM data (potentially affected population, economic activities) were 
used for setting FRMP objectives. The setting of priorities for flood risk management and the 

design  of  measures  used  criteria  which  employed  information  from  FHRMs  (changes  in 
affected area, in number of population at risk, in number of constructions at risk)17. 

2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

The  FRMP  assessment  looked  for  information  on  changes  in  the  identification  of  APSFRs 
since December 2011, or in the FHRMs since December 2013, indicated in the FRMPs18. No 
changes are reported for either APSFRs, or FHRMs in the Czech FRMPs19. 

13 FHRM Chapter 4 and Annexes 8.2 and 8.3. 
14 https://www.icpdr.org/main/publications/maps-danube-flood-risk-management-plan-2015  
15 http://geoportal.bafg.de/mapapps/resources/apps/MKOL_CZ/index.html?lang=en  
16 http://www.mkoo.pl/show.php?fid=4828&lang=CZ  
17 FRMPs Chapters 5.2, 6.4, 7.2. 
18 FRMPs Chapter 3. 
19 FRMPs Chapter 4. 

15 

 
                                                 
2.4 

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

The FHRM assessment20 identified the following areas for further development for the Czech 
Republic: 

  All  relevant  sources  of  flood  (fluvial,  pluvial,  groundwater,  artificial  water  bearing 
structures) were assessed, but no distinction was made on maps among flood sources.  

This  area  for  further  development  has  not  been  addressed  in  the  time  period  between 

publication of the FHRMs and the assessment of the FRMPs, based on the information in the 
online FHRMs, nor in the Czech FRMPs21.  

2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  Although  reportedly  all  relevant  sources  of  flood  (fluvial,  pluvial,  groundwater,  artificial 
water  bearing  structures)  were  assessed,  the  FHRMs  do  not  distinguish  among  flood 
sources.  

  The national FRMPs provide little information on coordination with neighbouring Member 
States  at  the  PFRA  and  FHRM  stages  (this  information  is  instead  available  only  in  the 

international FRMPs).  

20 European Commission, Assessment of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps – Member State Report: CZ – Czech 

Republic, December 2014. Available at: 

  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/CZ%20FHRM%20Report.pdf   
21 FRMPs Chapter 4. 

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
3.   Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

The strategic objectives of the Czech Republic’s Flood Risk Management Plans are to: reduce 

the  likelihood  of  flood  risk  and  reduce  the  potential  adverse  consequences  of  flooding  on 
human health, the environment, cultural heritage, infrastructure and economic activity.  

The three FRMPs all set out three specific objectives:  

1.  avoiding new risks and reducing areas at unacceptable risk (through application of flood 

prevention in land use planning);  

2.  reduction  of  flood  danger  (through  implementation  of  measures  aiming  at  flood 
retention,  flood  peak  reduction,  increase  of  natural  water  retention,  implementation  of 
good  agricultural  and  forestry  practices  enabling  water  retention  and  proper  rainwater 

management in urban areas); and  

3.  strengthening  the  preparedness  of  the  population  and  strengthening  resilience  (through 
the preparation of local flood action plans, establishment of the necessary basis for sound 
contingency  planning,  further  improvement  of  flood  forecasting  and  warning  services 
and contributions of building owners to their protection from floods and to prevention of 

the impacts from flooded buildings on the environment). 

Consequently, in the three Czech FRMPs22: 

  The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods;  
  The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding23;  
  The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented;  
  The objectives refer to non-structural measures24.  

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

In the Czech Republic's FRMPs, objectives are neither specific nor measurable. The objectives 
are general but the measures which are based on these objectives are concrete and measurable. 

22 These categories are included in Art. 7 of the FD. 
23 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. 

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

land use planning, economic instruments and insurance. 

17 

 
                                                 
3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

One of the two strategic objectives calls for the reduction of adverse consequences of flooding 

on human health, the environment, cultural heritage, infrastructure and economic activity. This 
is  further  supported  by  the  specific  objectives,  in  particular  the  first  and  second  specific 

objectives.  

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

The  FRMPs  set  the  reduction  of  the  likelihood  of  flooding  as  one  of  the  two  strategic 
objectives. This is further addressed by the second specific objective, reduction of flood danger 

(through implementation of measures aiming at flood retention, flood peak reduction, increase 
of natural water retention, implementation of good agricultural and forestry practices enabling 

water retention and proper rainwater management in urban areas). 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

The  FRMPs  indicate  that  the  development  of  the  objectives  was  coordinated  on  the  national 

and  regional  levels.  The  objectives  were  discussed  with  stakeholders  within  the  public 
consultation on the FRMPs (see section 7). Further details are not provided, however. 

While  the  FRMPs  cite  studies  concerning  the  impacts  of  climate  change  on  floods  (and 
highlight high uncertainty of the results of these studies), they do not explain if or how climate 

change has been used for the setting of the objectives.  

The FRMPs cite objectives for flood risk management in previous planning documents, before 

entry into force of the FD, such as the Czech Strategy for flood protection since the year 2000 
and RBMPs: These objectives included natural  water retention and the need for international 

cooperation, objectives that are further developed in the FRMPs. 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following good practice was identified: 

  FRMPs  describe  and  build  on  objectives  for  the  management  of  flood  risk  in  previous 
planning  documents  before  entry  into  force  of  the  FD,  which  included  natural  water 
retention.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The objectives are not specific or measurable.  

18 

 
 
4.   Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

The  Czech  Republic  reported  six  individual  and  55  aggregated25  measures,  a  total  of  61 
measures26. The FRMPs mention that there are individual and aggregated measures but details 
on how these categories were defined are not provided. 

The  aggregated  measures  are  reported  for  all  three  UoMs;  however,  individual  measures  are 

only reported for the Oder UoM (CZ6000). 

In terms  of the breakdown across the four measure aspects,  the Czech Republic reported:  15 

prevention measures (one individual measure and 15 aggregated measures, representing 25 % 
of  total  measures);  31  protection  measures  (five  individual  and  26  aggregated,  50  %  of  all 

measures); and 15 preparedness measures (all aggregated measures, 25 % of all measures). The 
Czech Republic did not report measures for recovery & review or "other" measures. According 

to  the  FRMPs,  this  is  because  recovery  and  review  measures  are  obligatory  in  national 
legislation and are implemented after each flood event in a standard way. 

For  further  information  on  the  breakdown  of  measures,  please  see  Annex  A  for  tables  and 

charts of the measures reported.  

The  Czech  FRMPs  classify  measures  into  “general”  measures,  which  aim  at  fulfilling  the 

general objectives of flood risk management, and “concrete” measures. All general measures 
are  non-structural  measures.  All  concrete  measures  in  the  Danube  and  Elbe  UoM  are 

construction  measures  identified  as  protection  measures;  for  the  Oder  UoM,  the  concrete 
measures cover both protection and prevention.  

The  FRMPs  identify  52  concrete  measures  in  the  Elbe  UoM,  55  concrete  measures  in  the 

Danube UoM, and 28 concrete measures in the Oder UoM. As can be seen, the total of general 
and  concrete  measures  listed  in  the  FRMPs  is  higher  than  the  total  number  of  measures 

reported by the Czech Republic to WISE. An explanation for the difference is not provided. In 
this section, some of the information available on measures comes from the reporting and other 

information from the FRMPs.  

25 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. 

26 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. 

19 

 
                                                 
4.1 

Cost of measures 

Table 6 

Estimated overall budget for the measures in the FRMPs 

UoM 

Danube (CZ1000) 

Elbe (CZ5000) 

Oder (CZ6000) 

Estimated overall budget of planned “concrete” measures  
(2015-2021) in CZK 

14 347 400 000 

7 174 900 000 

7 576 000 000 

Source: FRMPs 

The  Czech  Republic  did  not  provide  information  in  its  reporting  sheets  on  the  costs  of 
measures. Its FRMPs, however, provide a cost estimate for each concrete measure. Summing 

up all costs for planned concrete measures in the Danube CZK gives the total of  14 347.4 m 
(approximately €560 m); in the Elbe UoM, a total of CZK 7 174.9 m (approximately €280 m); 

in  the Oder CZK, 7 576 m  (approximately  €300 m). The FRMPs do not  indicate which cost 
components are included in the estimates (i.e. if they represent only investment costs or also 

include operational costs). 

In  contrast,  no  cost  estimates  are  provided  for  general  measures,  which  are  non-structural 
measures.  

4.2 

Funding of measures 

The  FRMPs  refer  to  several  national  funding  schemes  that  support  financing  of  flood  risk 

management measures under the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment, but 
do not provide further detail.  

CZ1000 

CZ5000 

CZ6000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Table 7 

Funding of measures 

Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding  

Use of public budget (national level)  

Use of public budget (regional level)  

Use of public budget (local level)  

Private investment  

EU funds (generic)  

EU Structural funds  

EU Solidarity Fund  

EU Cohesion funds  

EU CAP funds  

International funds  

Other 

Source: FRMPs 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

All FRMPs include a clear and explicit description of the measures with regard to:  

  What they are trying to achieve, 

  Where they are to be achieved, 

  How they are to be achieved, and 

  By when they are expected to be achieved. 

The general measures, which are non-structural measures, cover each sub-basin in the UoMs: 

for  each  measure,  the  number  of  APSFRs  and  municipalities  in  which  they  are  going  to  be 
implemented is provided.  

A list of all concrete measures is provided in each FRMP (in Annex 8.7). For each individual 
concrete measure, the respective water course, location, type, description of the measure, costs, 

priority and status of implementation are reported. 

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

Table 8 

Location of measures  

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk area  

Water body level  

More detailed than water body 

4.4  Measures and objectives 

Source: FRMPs 

All UoMs  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The FRMPs make clear how measures will contribute to the achievement of objectives and by 

how  much  they  will  contribute.  It  is  not  clear,  however,  whether  the  objectives  will  be 
achieved  when  all  measures  are  completed  (as  noted  in  section  2,  the  objectives  are  not 
specific or measurable).  

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

In its reporting sheets, the Czech Republic provided the location of all measures, however, this 

was  an  open  question,  and  as  such,  the  level  of  detail  varied,  and  it  was  not  practical  to 
aggregate  the  information.  The  Czech  Republic  did  not  report  information  about  the 

geographic coverage of any of the measures.  

As noted above, the FRMPs also provide details on the location of all measures.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

For the 61 measures reported, the Czech Republic indicated their priority:  

  No measures have critical priority 

  35  measures  have  very  high  priority  (seven  prevention,  20  protection  and  eight 

preparedness measures), 57 % of all 61 measures reported;  

  16 measures have high priority (seven prevention, seven protection, two preparedness), 

26 % of all measures;  

  eight  measures  have  moderate  priority  (one  prevention, 

two  protection,  five 

preparedness), 13 % of all measures, and  

 

two measures have low priority (both are protection measures), 3 % of all measures. 

According  to  the  FRMPs,  the  level  of  priority  of  concrete  measures  was  set  by  expert 
judgment. No further information was found27 28. 

The Czech Republic did not report information about the timetable of any of the measures, and 

no information is provided in the FRMPs. 

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

The  Czech  Republic  reported  on  the  authorities  responsible  for  the  implementation  of 
measures;  however,  it  has  not  been  feasible  to  aggregate  the  varied  information  provided. 

Nevertheless,  the  following  types  of  responsible  authorities  are  indicated:  municipalities  and 
regions  (jointly),  municipalities,  property  and  facility  owners,  river  basin  managers  and 

municipalities (jointly). 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

The Czech Republic indicated the progress of implementation of the 61 measures reported:  

  42 measures are ‘Not started’ (all 15 prevention measures, all 15 preparedness measures 

and 12 protection measures), for 69 % of all measures  

  eight protection measures are ‘Progress ongoing’, 13 % of all measures, and  

  11 protection measures are ‘Completed’, 18 % of all measures. 

27 FRMPs Chapter 6.4. 
28 The  Czech  authorities  clarified  subsequently  that  prioritisation  was  done  by  the  River  Board  Authority 
depending on the maturity of the project (designs, other documents, permissions etc.) and the budget available. 
Non-structural measures were assigned high priority. 

22 

 
                                                 
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: the Czech reporting sheets did not provide information, however. The 
Czech FRMPs refer to the WFD, but not to specific measures within the RBMPs. No explicit 

reference to the Seveso Directive was found in FRMPs. 

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

The  four  general  prevention  measures  address  land  use  and  spatial  planning:  in  particular, 
they  seek  to  prevent  the  location  of  new  or  additional  receptors  in  flood  prone  areas  and  to 
adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a flood29. 

Some NWRM have been planned in all three Czech FRMPs, with limited detail. The concrete 
measures  include  flood  retention  by  polders  and  reservoirs30  and  stream  revitalisation31.  The 
FRMPs also refer to NWRM prepared under the Czech RBMPs32. 

No 

information  was  found  regarding  measures  which  specifically  consider  nature 

conservation. 

No information was found regarding measures related to navigation and port infrastructure. 

Specific  information  about  dredging  was  not  found,  but  there  are  measures  to  increase  the 
river channel capacity (and these could potentially include dredging).  

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The role of insurance policies is not discussed in any of the Czech FRPMs. 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

To  monitor  the  implementation  progress  of  the  FRMP  measures,  the  effectiveness  of  the 

planned measures will be evaluated in all APSFRs through an analysis of FHR maps at the end 
of  the  flood  risk  management  planning  period.  This  analysis  will  be  based  on  the  following 

criteria:  1)  change  in  areas  at  unacceptable  risk,  2)  change  of  the  number  of  population  at 
unacceptable risk, 3) change of the number of constructions (objects) at unacceptable risk, 4) 

individual  assessment  of  vulnerable  objects,  5)  change  of  the  number  of  updated  municipal 
flood action plans, 6) change of the number of local urban plans (or change in their quality), 7) 

29 FRMPs Chapter 6.3. 
30 This appears to match NWRM measure type U11, Retention Ponds: see Annex B for the list of NWRM measure 

types. 

31 This appears to match NWRM measure type N05, Stream bed re-naturalization: see Annex B. 
32 FRMPs Chapter 7.2 

23 

 
                                                 
change  in  the  number  of  flood  warning  sites,  8)  change  of  the  number  of  the  municipalities 
with flood warning systems.  

The baseline is set by the FHR maps elaborated in 201333. 

4.13  Coordination with the WFD 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  development  of  the  FRMP  has  been  coordinated  with  the 

development of the second River Basina management Plan (RBMP) of the WFD. 

Table 9 

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

Integration of FRMP and RBMP in 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 FD were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a 

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

The RBMP Programme of Measures (PoM) includes win-win measures in terms 
of achieving the objectives of the WFD and FD, drought management and 
NWRM 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  

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  

All UoMs 

*  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Notes: * integrated plans cover river basin and flood risk management at sub-basin level (C-
level plans). a  based on reporting under the WFD. 

Full integration of FRM and RBM plans is on the level C, as the sub-basin plans deal with both 
river basin management and flood risk management (level C plans deal with other areas which 

33 FRMPs Chapter 6.4. 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
have not been assigned as the areas of potential significant  flood risk but all APSFRs, Flood 
Hazard  Risk  maps  and  flood  risk  management  planning  for  levels  B  and  A  are  also  initially 

prepared  for  sub-basins).  The  measures  for  RBM  plans  are  designed  with  the  aim  of  having 
positive effects on reducing flood risks (natural water retention). Flood reduction measures are 
designed with the aim of respecting the environmental objectives of WFD34. 

Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The FRMPs provide information on the costs of “concrete” measures.  

  FRMPs  provide  information  on  the  measures  from  the  previous  plans  (river  basin 

management plans in 2009 contained flood risk management measures).  

  To monitor the implementation of the FRMP measures, the effectiveness of the planned 
measures will be evaluated in all APSFRs through an analysis of FHR maps at the end of 
the flood risk management planning period, based on eight criteria. 

The following areas for further development were identified:  

  While  cost  information  is  provided,  the  FRMPs  do  not  include  overall  budgets  and 

information on whether both investment and operational costs are included35. 

  Few details are provided on nature based solutions (e.g. NWRMs) and no information is 

provided on how nature protection is addressed. 

34 FRMPs Chapter 7.2. 
35 The Czech authorities clarified subsequently that it is investment costs of structural measures that are included 

in the FRMPs. 

25 

 
 
 
                                                 
5. Consideration of climate change 

The three FRMPs refer to Czech studies investigating impacts of climate change on floods, and 

they highlight the high level of uncertainty in the results of these studies. In summarising the 
studies,  the  FRMPs  present  a  conclusion  that  climate  change  will  not  impact  future  flood 

characteristics in the Czech Republic significantly. Chapter 3.3. contains references to the shift 
in  occurrence  of  extreme  events  and  changes  in  numerical  recurrence  times.  While  winter 

precipitation is projected to increase and summer precipitation to decrease, as noted above, no 
major changes in the occurrence of extreme events are predicted. 

The FRMPs do not provide references to the Czech Climate Change Adaptation Strategy36.  

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change 

There is no information in the FRMPs regarding specific measures to address expected effects 

of climate change. 

5.2  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

Because  of  the  conclusion  that  climate  change  will  not  significantly  impact  future  flood 
characteristics in the Czech Republic, the  absence in  the  FRMPs of  any reference to  climate 

change related measures is not considered to be a weakness for the current FRMPs. However, 
due to the uncertainty of how the climate change phenomenon will develop, it is expected that 

the Czech Republic will adopt a precautionary approach and keep studying climate change and 
include  relevant  findings  (incl.  responses)  in  the  second  cycle  of  the  FD.  Also,  coordination 

between the national climate change adaptation strategy and the FRMPs should be ensured. 

36 The  national  Adaptation  Strategy  was  adopted  in  2015,  replacing  a  previous  policy  document.  See: 

https://www.mzp.cz/en/strategy_adaptation_climate_change  

26 

 
 
 
                                                 
6. Cost-benefit analysis 

Only  limited  information  on  cost  benefit  analysis  was  provided  in  FRMPs  stating  that  the 

assessment  of  construction  measures  is  based  on  the  assessment  of  their  costs  and  benefits 
using risk analysis of potential flood damages37. The Czech reporting sheets do not provide any 
information on CBA. 

The international plan for the Danube River Basin District states that: 

“No cost benefit analysis in flood risk management was applied in CZ as there was no 

methodology  available  for  the  evaluation  of  the  benefit  of  the  flood  risk  protection 
measures mentioned in the Czech national Flood risk management plan for the Danube 

River  Basin  District.  For  the  purpose  of  evaluation  of  particular  flood  protection 
measures by strategic experts the efficiency ratio is calculated using the expected flood 

damages and the costs of the measures.” 

Taking into account this information, it appears that a full CBA was not used, though an expert 
assessment of costs and benefits was carried out for at least a set of measures. 

6.1  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning  cost-

benefit analysis 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The  Czech  FRMPs  provide  limited  information  on  the  use  of  CBA,  and,  taking  into 
account information from the international Danube FRMP, it appears that a full-fledged 
CBA was not used.  

37 Chapter 6.1 of the FRMPs. 

27 

 
 
 
                                                 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

Based  on  the  FRMPs  and  the  information  provided  in  the  reported  sheets,  the  Competent 
Authorities  and  the  UoAs  identified  for  the  FD  have  not  changed.  No  changes  have  been 

notified in Czech reporting on Competent Authorities since the last update in 2012. 

7.2 

Public information and consultation  

The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the three UoMs 
concerning the draft FRMPs. Information on how the consultation was actually carried out and 
which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section38: 

Table 10 

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

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking  

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

CZ1000 

CZ5000 

CZ6000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

Supporting  workshops  addressing  different  elements  of  the  FRMPs  were  organised  before 

publishing draft FRMPs. Draft FRMPs were uploaded on 22 December 2014 on the website of 
the  Czech  flood  information  system  (POVIS)39  and  on  website  of  river  basin  authorities. 
Workshops took place in early 2015 at which representatives of Ministry of Environment, river 
basin authorities, regional authorities and experts discussed the draft FRMP40. 

38 The  Czech  Republic  subsequently  informed  that  public  consultation  for  the  FRMPs  followed  national 
requirements, including provisions in the  Water Act and other laws. While  few details  were  mentioned in the 
FRMPs,  information  was  published  in  publicly  available  documents  as  per  national  legislation.  Information 
about the public consultation is available in the Flood information system, POVIS. A document is provided for 
each FRMP:  

  Elbe FRMP: http://www.povis.cz/pdf/PZPR_Labe_vyhodnoceni_pripominek.pdf  
  Oder FRMP: http://www.povis.cz/pdf/PZPR_Odra_vyhodnoceni_pripominek.pdf  
  Danube FRMP: http://www.povis.cz/pdf/PZPR_Dunaj_vyhodnoceni_pripominek.pdf 

39 http://www.povis.cz  
40 FRMPs Chapter 7.1. 

28 

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

Table 11 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet  

Via digital social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

Postal written comments 

CZ1000 

CZ5000 

CZ6000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

As noted above, workshops were organized before publishing draft FRMPs and in early 2015. 

Stakeholders could submit comments via the Internet or via post to the competent authorities.  

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

Table 12 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable 

Direct mailing (e-mail) 

Direct mailing (post) 

All UoMs  

✔ 

Paper copies distributed at exhibitions 

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

Paper copies at the main office of the competent authority 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

The documents for the consultation were available for download from the Internet. There were 
no differences between the FRMPs. 

7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

The  table  below  shows  the  groups  of  stakeholders  that  have  been  actively  involved  in  the 

development of the three FRMPs: 

Table 13 

Groups of stakeholders  

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

All UoMs 

✔ 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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) 

NGOs including nature protection, social (e.g. children, housing) 

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  

Academia / Research Institutions  

Source: FRMPs 

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

According  to  the  FRMPs,  the  stakeholders  who  participated  in  special  events  organised  to 
provide information about the first draft Flood Risk Management Plans were: representatives 

of  Civil  Protection  Authorities  and  Flood  Warning  /  Defence  Authorities,  experts  from 
research institutions and the representatives of local authorities.  

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

Table 14 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders 

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory groups  

Involvement in drafting  

Workshops and technical meetings 

Formation of alliances  

Information days 

Source: FRMPs 

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

The main mechanisms for active involvement of stakeholders were the formation of advisory 
groups  and  the  organisation  of  workshops.  The  FRMPs  do  not  provide  details  on  these 

mechanisms, however.  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.4 

Effects of consultation 

Information about the effects of public consultation on the FRMPs is available in the national 
Flood information system (POVIS)41. There is a document for each FRMP:  

  Elbe FRMP: http://www.povis.cz/pdf/PZPR_Labe_vyhodnoceni_pripominek.pdf;  

  Oder FRMP: http://www.povis.cz/pdf/PZPR_Odra_vyhodnoceni_pripominek.pdf;  

  Danube FRMP http://www.povis.cz/pdf/PZPR_Dunaj_vyhodnoceni_pripominek.pdf. 

In these documents, each comment is presented, and the action taken is indicated for each (i.e. 
if the comment is accepted, not accepted, or clarified). 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

According  to  the  Czech  Republic’s  reporting  sheets,  all  three  FRMPs  underwent  a  Strategic 

Environmental Assessment procedure. The FRMPs, however, do not refer to the SEA. 

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The  Czech  Republic  has  prepared  reports  that  provide  an  overview  of  the  consultation 

process for each FRMP, indicating for example how each comment was addressed. 

41 See: http://www.povis.cz, under Plány pro zvládání povodňových rizik. 

31 

 
 
 
                                                 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures provided by the Czech Republic 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 FD)42, not all fields are 
mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields.  

Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers  – for example, 

progress  is  measured  via  the  categories  set  out  in  the  Reporting  Guidance.  This  means  that 
producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort.  For many fields, however, a 

free  data  format  was  used.  For  some  Member  States,  this  resulted  in  thousands  of  different 
answers, or answers given in the national language.   

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

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

observations. 

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

32 

 
                                                 
 

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

data sorted. 

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

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

categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The following table43 is used in the reporting on the types of measures. Each type of measures 
is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. 

NO ACTION 

M11: No Action 

PREVENTION 

M21: Avoidance 

PREPAREDNESS 

M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning 

M42: Emergency response planning 

M43: Public Awareness 

M44: Other preparedness 

RECOVERY & REVIEW 

M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery 

M22: Removal or relocation 

M52: Environmental recovery 

M23: Reduction 

M24: Other prevention 

PROTECTION 

M31: Natural flood management 

M32: Flow regulation 

M33: Coastal and floodplain works 

M34: Surface Water Management 

M35: other protection 

M53: Other recovery  

OTHER MEASURES 

M61: Other measures 

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

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ........... 37 
Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect ............. 37 
Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Category of priority by measure aspect .................... 39 
Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Category of priority by UoM .................................... 40 
Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Level of responsibility by measure aspect ................ 41 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Level of responsibility by UoM ................................ 42 
Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A9: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ........ 43 
Figure A8 - Visualisation of Table A10: Progress of implementation by UoM ...................... 43 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ..................................................................................... 35 
Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure aspect and UoM ............................. 35 
Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM ............................... 36 
Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, 
including duplicates ................................................................................................................. 36 
Table A5 - Category of priority by measure aspect ................................................................. 39 
Table A6 - Category of priority by UoM ................................................................................. 39 
Table A7 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect ............................................................. 41 
Table A8 - Level of responsibility by UoM............................................................................. 41 
Table A9 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect .................................................... 42 
Table A10 – Progress of implementation by UoM .................................................................. 43 

34 

 
 
Measures overview 

Table A1 - Total number of measures 

Number of individual measures 

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

Number of aggregated measures  

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

Total number of measures  

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

Range of number of measures between UoMs (Min-Max) 

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

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

6 

6 

55 

55 

61 

61 

17 – 26 

20 

CZ6000 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

M24 

1 

1 

M32 

5 

5 

Preparedness 

Recovery & Review 

Other 

Grand Total 

0 

6 

6 

6 

Average per UoM 

5 
Note: Individual measures were reported only for CZ6000 and only for prevention and protection aspects.  

0 

0 

1 

35 

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

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

M21  M22  M23  M24 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M41 

M42 

M43 

M44 

Recovery 
& 
Review 

Other 

Grand 
Total 

CZ_1000 

CZ_5000 

CZ_6000 

Grand Total 

Average per 
UoM 

2 

2 

2 

6 

2 

2 

2 

2 

6 

2 

1 

1 

<1 

4 

4 

1 

1 

1 

<1 

2 

5 

2 

9 

3 

3 

5 

5 

13 

4 

1 

2 

3 

6 

2 

2 

2 

2 

6 

2 

1 

1 

<1 

2 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Note: Aggregated measures were reported only for prevention, protection and preparedness aspects.  

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

Prevention 

Prevention 

Protection 

Protection 

Preparedness  Preparedness  Recovery 

Aggregate 

Individual 

Total 

Aggregate 

Individual 

Total 

Aggregate 

Total 

CZ6000 

CZ5000 

CZ1000 

Grand 
Total 

Average per 
UoM 

5 

4 

5 

14 

5 

1 

1 

<1 

6 

4 

5 

15 

5 

7 

10 

9 

26 

9 

5 

5 

2 

12 

10 

9 

31 

10 

8 

4 

3 

15 

5 

8 

4 

3 

15 

5 

Notes: Aggregated measures were reported only for prevention, protection and preparedness aspects. 

Individual measures were reported only for CZ6000 and only for prevention and protection aspects. 

& 
Review 

Other 

0 

0 

0 

0 

17 

18 

20 

55 

18 

Grand 
Total 

26 

18 

17 

61 

20 

36 

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

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

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

Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

  Cost explanation (optional field). 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
The Czech Republic did not provide information about costs or cost explanations for any of the 
measures in the reporting sheets. 

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to report information on the following: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); 

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

Location of measures 

The  Czech  Republic  reported  on  the  location  of  all  measures,  however,  this  was  an  open 
question,  and  as  such,  the  level  of  detail  varied,  and  it  was  not  practical  to  aggregate  the 

information. Please refer to the reporting sheets for a full list of the location of measures. 

Geographic coverage 

No information was reported in the reporting sheets.  

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

in the textual part of the XML); 

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

is required); 

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

required). 

Objectives 

The Czech Republic did not provide information about the geographic coverage of any of the 

measures in the reporting sheets. 

Category of priority 

The Czech Republic reported the priority for all measures under the following categories: 

  Critical 

  Very high 

38 

 
  High 

  Moderate 

  Low. 

Table A5 - Category of priority by measure aspect 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Grand Total 

7 

20 

8 

35 

7 

7 

2 

16 

1 

2 

5 

8 

2 

2 

15 

31 

15 

61 

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

Notes: No measures were categorised as critical. 

Table A6 - Category of priority by UoM 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

Grand Total 

CZ_6000 

CZ_5000 

CZ_1000 

Grand Total 

Average per 
UoM 

13 

15 

7 

35 

12 

6 

3 

7 

16 

5 

7 

1 

8 

3 

26 

18 

17 

61 

20 

2 

2 

1 

39 

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

Notes: No measures were categorised as critical. 

Timetable 

The Czech Republic did not provide information about the timetable of any of the measures. 

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).  

Overall, the Czech Republic did not consistently provide information for these two topics. The 
information  about  name  of  the  responsible  authority  is  diverse,  making  it  impractical  to 

aggregate.  Nevertheless,  the  information  about  level  of  responsibility  was  categorised  as 
follows: 

  Municipalities and regions; 

  Municipality; 

  Owner – refers to owner of the property or facility; 

  RB manager, municipality – refers to River Basin manager and municipality; 

  Other. 

40 

 
 
 
Table A7 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

Municipalities 
and regions 

Municipality  Owner 

RB manager, 
municipality 

Other 

No 
information 

Grand 
Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Grand Total 

7 

7 

6 

1 

1 

8 

7 

3 

10 

4 

4 

2 

2 

2 

24 

4 

30 

15 

31 

15 

61 

Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

Table A8 - Level of responsibility by UoM 

Municipalities 
and regions 

Municipality  Owner 

RB manager, 
municipality 

Other 

No 
information 

Grand 
Total 

CZ_6000 

CZ_5000 

CZ_1000 

Grand 
Total 

Average 
per UoM 

2 

3 

2 

7 

2 

3 

2 

3 

8 

3 

4 

3 

3 

10 

3 

4 

4 

1 

2 

2 

1 

15 

6 

9 

30 

10 

26 

18 

17 

61 

20 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Level of responsibility by UoM 

Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

whose responses are analysed below; 

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

analysed here. 

The  Czech  Republic  reported  information  about  the  progress  of  implementation  of  the 
measures. The Progress of implementation was reported as44:  

  COM (completed); 

  OGC (ongoing construction); 

  POG (progress ongoing); 

  NS (not started). 

A full definition of these terms can be found at the end of this section.  

Table A9 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Completed 

Progress ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Grand Total 

11 

11 

8 

8 

15 

12 

15 

42 

15 

31 

15 

61 

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

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A9: Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Table A10 – Progress of implementation by UoM 

Completed 

Progress ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

CZ_6000 

CZ_5000 

CZ_1000 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

5 

4 

2 

11 

4 

1 

7 

8 

3 

20 

14 

8 

42 

14 

26 

18 

17 

61 

20 

Figure A8 - Visualisation of Table A10: Progress of implementation by UoM 

The categories describing the progress of measures are defined in the EU Reporting Guidance 
Document on the FD. 

43 

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

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

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

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

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

but are not finalized. 

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

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

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

provided any advisory session yet. 

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

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

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

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

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

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

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

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

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

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

been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

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

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

44 

 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: other 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

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

  Any other information reported (optional field). 

No information was provided in the reporting sheets for these sections. 

45 

 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures45 

M11 

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

No Action 

Prevention 

M21  Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone 

areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation 

M22 

Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to 
relocate receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard 

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

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

M24 

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

Protection 

M31 

M32 

M33 

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

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

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

M34  Protection, Surface Water Management, Measures involving physical interventions to reduce surface 
water flooding, typically, but not exclusively, in an urban environment, such as enhancing artificial 
drainage capacities or though sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). 

M35 

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

Preparedness 

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

warning system 

M42 

M43 

M44 

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

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

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

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

46 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Recovery & Review 

M51 

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

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

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

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

M61 

policies 

Other 

Other 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) 

NWRM cover a wide range of actions and land use types. Many different measures can act as 
NWRM,  by  encouraging  the  retention  of  water  within  a  catchment  and,  through  that, 

enhancing  the  natural  functioning  of  the  catchment.  The  catalogue  developed  in  the  NWRM 
project  represents  a  comprehensive  but  non  prescriptive  wide  range  of  measures;  other 

measures,  or  similar  measures  called  by  a  different  name,  that  could  also  be  classified  as 
NWRM.  

To ease access to measures, the catalogue of measures hereunder is sorted by the primary land 
use in which it was implemented: Agriculture; Forest; Hydromorphology; Urban. Most of the 

measures however can be applied to more than one land use type. 

Table B2 

List of NWRM 

Agriculture 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

F02 Maintenance of forest 
cover in headwater areas 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

A03 Crop rotation 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U03 Permeable 
surfaces 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

U05 Channels and rills 

47 

 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

A07 Low till agriculture 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

A08 Green cover 

F08 Appropriate design of 
roads and stream 
crossings 

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 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 
features 

U06 Filter Strips 

U07 Soakaways 

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation 

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches 

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

U09 Rain Gardens 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

N12 Lake restoration 

U12 Infiltration basins 

A13 Mulching 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

48