COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: France 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: France, 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) 68 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: France 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) 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 ..................................................................................................................................... 6 

Overview of the assessment .................................................................................................... 8 

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

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

Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 13 

1. 

 Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment ......................... 14 

1.1  Reporting of the FRMPs ............................................................................................ 14 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs ......................................................................................... 14 

2. 

 Integration of previously reported information ................................................................ 15 

2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment................................ 15 

2.2 

Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs .................... 16 

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas ................................................... 17 

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 ..................................................... 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 ............................................................................... 22 

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) measures ............................................ 24 

4.4  Measures and objectives............................................................................................. 25 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures .................................................................... 25 

4.6 

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

1 

 
 
4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ........................................... 26 

4.8 

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

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ........................................................... 27 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ....................................................................................... 27 

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

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ...................................................... 28 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive ................................................... 28 

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

5. 

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

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

6. 

 Cost-benefit analysis......................................................................................................... 33 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ..................................................... 33 

7. 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation .  
 ........................................................................................................................................... 34 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................ 34 

7.2 

Public information and consultation .......................................................................... 34 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders .......................................................................... 36 

7.4 

7.5 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................ 37 

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

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding governance ................. 38 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 39 

Background & method .......................................................................................................... 39 

Types of measures used in reporting ..................................................................................... 40 

List of Annex A tables & figures ........................................................................................... 41 

Measure details: cost ............................................................................................................. 46 

Measure details: name & location ......................................................................................... 46 

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

Measure details: authorities ................................................................................................... 49 

Measure details: progress ...................................................................................................... 50 

Measure details: other ........................................................................................................... 54 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types .................................................................................... 56 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) ................................................. 57 

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  (MS)  to  assess  its 

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

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

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

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

This  report assesses the  FRMPs for  France1.  It assesses the  FRMPs  and  MS reporting to  the 
European Commission in 2016. Its structure follows a common assessment template used for 

all Member States. The report draws on two main sources:   

 Member State reporting to the European Commission on the FRMPs2 as per Articles 7 and 
15  of  the  FD:  this  reporting  provides  an  overview  of  the  plans  and  details  on  their 
measures. 

 Selected FRMPs: due to the high number of FRMPs prepared in France, the assessment has 

focused on a selected set of five plans. The FRMPs selected are3: 

o Scheldt (FRA) 
o Adour-Garonne (FRF) 
o Rhine (FRC) 
o Rhône (FRD)  
o La Réunion (FRL) 

2  

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

3   The full names of each UoM are provided in the main text of the report.  

4 

 
 
                                                 
The Units of Management (UoMs) have been selected to cover different geographical areas of 
mainland France and one of its overseas departments4. The selection also covers transboundary 
aspects: three of UoMs are declared to be part of transboundary UoMs (Rhine, Scheldt, Adour-
Garonne).5 

4   Based  on  previous  assessments  (including  the  first  RBMPs)  it  was  likely  that  France  would  have  applied  a 
common methodology for its FRMPs. This was indeed the case: The assessment found that France applied a 
common  approach  in  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  for  example  with  common  national  objectives  and  UoM-
specific  objectives  linked  to  measures,  following  a  hierarchical  approach.  Some  differences  were  seen,  for 
example in the extent of detail provided on local flood plans. 

5   Although  France  has  not  indicated  the  Rhone  UoM  (FRD)  as  part  of  a  transboundary  UoM,  it  extends  into 

Switzerland and Italy. 

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) as presented in the 2012 RBMP assessment reports 

Under  the  Floods  Directive,  France  has  designated  14  units  of  management  (UoMs)  in 

mainland France and in  its overseas departments. These 14 UoMs correspond to the 14 river 
basin  districts  (RBDs)  designated  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD).  France  has 
prepared a flood risk management plan (FRMP) for each of its UoMs6. 

6   In addition, France has identified a Local Flood Risk Strategy for each APSFR. This report refers to the local 

strategies but does not assess them.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The FRMPs were approved by order (arrêté) of the Basin Coordinating Prefect for each UoM. 
The specific dates vary: for example, among the five FRMPs assessed, the plan for La Réunion 
(FRL)  was  approved  in  October  20157  and  the  plan  for  Rhône-Méditerranée  (FRD)  in 
December 20158. 

The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in France, 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 the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE9 – the FRMP as a PDF 
and the reporting sheet as an XML. France did not upload the FRMP files to WISE, and instead 
provided a document with a list of the internet links for each FRMP10. For the assessment the 
plans were obtained via the web site indicated below the table.  

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in France 

Name 

Number of 
APSFRs 

XML 
reported 

PDF 
Reported 

Escaut, Somme, et cours d'eau côtiers de la Mer de la 
Manche et de la Mer du Nord 

Meuse 

Sambre 

Rhin 

Rhône et cours d'eau côtiers méditeranéens 

Cours d'eau de la corse 

Garonne, Adour, Dordogne, Charente et cours d'eau 
côtiers charentais et aquitains 

Loire et cours d'eau côtiers vendéens et bretons 

Seine et cours d'eau côtiers normands 

Cours d'eau de la Guadeloupe 

Cours d'eau de la Martinique 

Fleuves et cours d'eau de la Guyane 

Cours d'eau de la Réunion 

Cours d'eau de Mayotte 

10 

4 

1 

8 

31 

3 

18 

20 

16 

2 

1 

1 

6 

1 
122 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
14 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 
0 

UoM 

FRA 

FRB1 

FRB2 

FRC 

FRD 

FRE 

FRF 

FRG 

FRH 

FRI 

FRJ 

FRK 

FRL 

FRM 
TOTAL 

7   See: 

8   See: 

9   See: 

http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/603/deliveries?id=603&tab=deliveries&d-4014547-p=1&d-4014547-
o=2&d-4014547-s=3 

10   France informed subsequently that some FRMP links changed in September 2017. 

7 

 
 
 
   
                                                 
 
 
The FRMPs can be downloaded via the following web page11: 

 https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/prevention-des-inondations 

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  

Some evidence 

The five FRMPs assessed cite three flood risk 
management objectives set at national level and 
also present their own objectives. All the 
FRMPs assessed identify sub-objectives under 
each of their objectives. 

The national objectives include: "to increase 
safety of affected persons” and to “stabilise and 
reduce the costs of flood damages”.  

Of the five FRMPs assessed, only the plan for 
Adour-Garonne contains an objective directly 
linked to reduction in the likelihood of 
flooding. In addition, several objectives, 
including those for spatial planning (found in 
all five FRMPs assessed), and their sub-
objectives and actions seek to reduce the 

11   Note: this web page of the Ministry for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition contains links to FRMP pages 

at RBD level. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...to non-structural initiatives   Strong evidence 

likelihood of flooding. Several objectives at 
APSFR level within the FRMPs assessed refer 
to the reduction of flood risk and of the 
likelihood of flooding.  

All five FRMPs assessed include objectives for 
sustainable spatial planning and for better 
knowledge related to flood risks. 

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

...human health  

Strong evidence 

...economic activity  

Strong evidence 

...environment  

Some evidence  

...cultural heritage  

Some evidence  

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence 

...prioritised  

Some evidence 

A common national objective, cited in each of 
the FRMPs assessed, is to increase safety of 
affected persons. 

A common national objective is to stabilise the 
costs of flood damages in the short term, and to 
diminish them in the medium term.  

Although the objectives in the five FRMPs 
assessed do not refer directly to environmental 
protection, environmental aspects are 
mentioned in the objectives of all five of the 
FRMPs assessed.  

In some of the FRMPs assessed, the objectives 
include a reference to the protection of cultural 
heritage. 

France has reported 601 individual measures 
and 47 aggregated measures (for a total of 648 
measures). The measures reported cover all 
aspects of flood risk management: prevention, 
protection, preparedness and recovery and 
review (in addition, France reported ‘no action’ 
and ‘other’ measures). 

France has reported the priority of all measures. 
Nonetheless, for some UoMs, all measures are 
given the same priority. The FRMPs assessed 
provide little information on priorities or on 
methodologies for their determination. 

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

...costs & benefits  

Some evidence  

While the five FRMPs assessed refer to cost-
benefit analysis (CBA), it is not clear if this has 
been carried out for the included measures or if 

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  

Strong evidence 

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

Some evidence 

this will be applied in the future12.  

There is evidence in the FRMPs assessed that 
flood extent has been considered: for example, 
in all five UoMs, APSFRs have been formally 
designated with a delineation of the flood 
extent, and local flood risk strategies are 
prepared for these areas. 

No reference was found in the FRMPs assessed 
to the consideration of flood conveyance 
routes13.   

All five FRMPs assessed set out natural water 
retention measures. For example, the Rhone 
FRMP (FRD) contains an action to restore the 
natural functioning of environments to allow 
the reduction of floods and floods from sea 
water. Similarly, the Scheldt FRMP (FRA) 
contains an action to conserve and restore 
natural flood zones. 

Natural water retention measures are included 
in all five FRMPs assessed, while France’s 
reporting under the WFD indicates that in all 
UoMs, WFD Article 4.7 was applied for flood 
infrastructure. 

All five FRMPs assessed set an objective to put 
in place sustainable spatial planning. Moreover, 
France has reported spatial planning measures 
in all of its UoMs.  

France’s reporting sheets indicate that 
implementation will support nature 
conservation. Moreover, four of the FRMPs 
assessed provide specific indications where 
nature conservation was taken into account. 

Two of the five FRMPs assessed make a brief 
reference that they shall take into consideration 
navigation and port infrastructure in specific 
actions: this is the case for the Scheldt (FRA) 
and Rhine (FRC) FRMPs. 

12   France clarified subsequently that a cost and benefit analysis is applied at project level. 
13   France subsequently informed that this information is provided at the project level. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Strong evidence 

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Some evidence  

France’s national strategy for flood risk 
management highlights the increase in flood 
risks due to climate change, focusing on sea-
level rise; some of the FRMPs assessed also 
refer to increased flood risks, in particular 
related to sea-level rise: the plans for the 
Scheldt, FRA, and Adour-Garonne, FRF. All 
the FRMPs assessed state that climate change is 
considered in the design of measures.   

The reporting sheet for the Scheldt (FRA) and 
the RBMP for the Rhine (FRC) refer to 
coordination with neighbouring Member States 
via the respective international river basin 
committees. The FRMP for the Rhone (FRD) 
refers to coordination with Switzerland and 
Italy. Information was not found on 
coordination with Spain or Andorra in the 
FRMP for the Adour-Garonne (FRF). 

Coordination ensured with 
WFD  

Strong evidence  

All the FRMPs assessed outline the articulation 
between the Floods Directive and the WFD.  

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Strong evidence  

All FRMPs indicate a range of stakeholders, in 
particular different government bodies, that 
were actively involved via the Basin 
Committees and other mechanisms.  

Good Practices 

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

Table 3 

Good practices in the French FRMPs 

Topic area 

Good practices identified 

Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk.  

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

All five FRMPs assessed have a coherent, hierarchical approach 
from national to UoM objectives and then to lines of action and local 
strategies.  

All five FRMPs assessed include objectives to address flood risks in 
spatial planning. 

France has reported spatial planning measures in all of its FRMPs. 

All five FRMPs assessed include NWRMs. 

11 

 
 
 
Topic area 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Flood risk governance.  

Good practices identified 

France’s national flood risk strategy refers to climate change and all 
five FRMPs assessed include measures that address potential climate 
impacts or call for their study14. 

For each FRMP, a range of government bodies as well as some non-
governmental stakeholders were involved in the preparation, under 
the aegis of the Basin Committee. 

France has developed flood risk plans at APSFR level that translate 
FRMP objectives into local goals and actions. 

Areas for further development 

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

assessed. 

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the French FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas for further development identified 

Integration of previously 
reported information  

Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk.  

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

The FRMPs assessed provide limited details on the prior steps: They 
include only limited information on APSFRs and describe only 
briefly the methodology followed for the RFRA and FHRM steps. 
Some internet links in the plans assessed do not work.15 
The objectives (national and UoM) are not measurable and specific16. 

The information provided in the FRMPs on their measures are not 
specific and measurable.  

The FRMPs do not provide information on the cost of measures or 
potential sources of funding17. 
The approach to prioritisation is not clear: France has reported all 
measures in some UoMs with the same priority, and the FRMPs 
assessed do not provide an indication how priorities were set.   

The FRMPs assessed provide limited information on monitoring 

14  France noted subsequently that the FHRMs for coastal flooding take into account the impact of sea level rise 
due  to climate  change, both  the short term and the long term (100 years) impact.  France, it  was also noted, 
added a map for coastal APSFRs to take into account the long term impact of climate change. 

15  This appears to be due to government reorganisation that impacted internet addresses. 
16  France subsequently described these objectives as strategic. As noted above, France’s  FRMPs are articulated 

via strategies for individual APSFRs and then local action programmes.  

17  France  subsequently  informed  that  the  implementation  of  FRMPs  is  mainly  done  through  financial 
programmes called PAPI (programmes d’actions de prévention des inondations). PAPIs contain very detailed 
actions,  with  detailed  time  schedules  and  cost  and  financing  elements.  During  the  last  two  years  (2016  and 
2017), around EUR 367,5 million have been invested from different sources of funding, including EUR 155 
million  from  the  “fonds  de  prévention  des  risques  naturels  majeurs”,  which  is  a  national  fund  dedicated  to 
natural risk prevention. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                 
Topic area 

Areas for further development identified 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

progress, indicators or a baseline, though it is indicated that these 
will be developed early in the implementation period on the basis of 
work at national level. 

While all of the FRMPs assessed make references to climate change, 
these references focus on sea level rise; effects such as changes in 
precipitation, are not addressed in the FRMPs. Moreover, the FRMPs 
do not refer to the national adaptation strategy.  

Use of CBA in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

The FRMPs provide little information on cost/benefit analysis and it 
is unclear if it was applied or in what circumstances it will be used18. 

Recommendations 

Based on the  reported information  and the  FRMPs assessed, the following  recommendations 

are made to enhance flood risk management (not listed in any particular order): 

 The  FRMPs  should  provide  more  detailed  information  on  the  prior  steps,  including 
summary maps and text regarding the APSFRs and references where they can be accessed. 

It is also important to ensure that FRMPs are continuously available to all concerned and 
the public in an accessible format, including digitally.  

 To be able to assess progress, objectives should include specific and measurable elements 
to  the  extent  possible  (including  a  baseline)  and  a  clear  link  between  measures  and 

objectives and between higher and lower level objectives should be maintained.  

 The FRMPs should provide greater information on measures (which should become more 
concrete),  including  costs  and  funding  sources,  details  on  location  and  information  on 

prioritisation and on monitoring progress.  

 Further  details  should  be  provided  on  potential  impacts  of  climate  change  and  on  how 
these  are  addressed  in  the  measures.  Coordination  between  FRMPs  and  national  climate 
change adaptation strategies should be ensured or elaborated upon. 

 The FRMPs should clarify the use, methodology and outcomes of CBA. 

18  France subsequently informed that cost and benefit analysis is applied at project level. 

13 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

France has reported 14 FRMPs, one for each UoM. The FRMPs themselves, however, were not 
uploaded  to  the  European  Environment  Agency’s  (EEA)  WISE,  instead,  web  links  were 

provided in a separate document.  

France did not make use of Article 13.3 of the Floods Directive, which allowed Member States 
to make use of previous flood risk management plans for the 1st cycle (provided their content is 
equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive). 

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

The  UoMs  have  been  selected  to  cover  different  geographical  areas  of  mainland  France  and 

also one of the overseas departments. Based on based on previous assessments (for example, 
for the first cycle of RBMPs) it was likely that France applies a common methodology for its 
FRMPs19. The selection also covers transboundary aspects: three of UoMs are declared to be 
part of transboundary UoMs (Rhine, Scheldt and Adour-Garonne); France has not indicated the 

Rhone UoM (FRD) as part of a transboundary UoM nevertheless, the river basin extends into 
Switzerland and Italy. 

The table below summarises the five UoMs selected for the assessment: 

Table 5 

UoMs assessed in France 

UoM code 

UoM Name 

FRA 

FRC 

FRD 

FRF 

FRL 

Scheldt, Somme and coastal waters of the Channel and the North Sea (Escaut, Somme, et 
cours d’eau côtiers de la Mer de la Manche et de la Mer du Nord) 

Rhine 

Rhone and Coastal Mediterranean (Rhône et cours d’eau côtiers Méditerranéens) 

Adour, Garonne, Dordogne, Charente and coastal waters of Aquitaine (Garonne, Adour, 
Dordogne, Charente et cours d’eau côtiers charentais et aquitains) 

La Réunion (Cours d’eau de la Réunion) 

For legibility, this report refers to FRA as the Scheldt UoM, FRD as the Rhone UoM, FRF as 
the Adour-Garonne UoM and FRL as the La Réunion UoM.  

19  The  assessment  found  that  France  indeed  applied  a  common  approach  in  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  for 
example  with  common  national  objectives  and  UoM-specific  objectives,  following  a  hierarchical  approach. 
Some differences exist, for example in the extent of detail provided on local flood plans. 

14 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

The  conclusions  of  the  PRFA  are  presented  in  the  five  FRMPs  assessed.  In  all  FRMPs 

assessed, there are summary maps showing areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFRs). 
Nor do the FRMPs describe the methodology employed for the PFRA step.20, 21 

The five FRMPs assessed provide links to maps of the APSFRs. At the time of the assessment, 
however  (August  2018),  three  of  the  five  links  still  worked,  those  for  the  Rhone,  for  La 
Réunion and for Scheldt: 

 Rhone (FRD):  

http://www.rhone-mediterranee.eaufrance.fr/gestion/inondations/cartes.php;  

 La Réunion (FRL): 

http://www.reunion.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/cartographie-des-risques-sur-les-
r299.html 

 Scheldt (FRA): 

http://www.nord-pas-de-calais.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/?Cartographie-des-TRI 

For the other two FRMPs assessed, maps of the APSFRs can be found on the following web 
pages: 

 Rhine (FRC): 

http://www.grand-est.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/evaluation-preliminaire-des-
risques-d-inondation-r6726.html  

 Adour-Garonne (FRF):  

http://www.occitanie.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/consulter-l-evaluation-
preliminaire-du-risque-d-a19519.html  

Information was not found in the FRMPs regarding the treatment of conveyance routes in the 
PFRA. 

20  FRMP FRA, p.2; FRMP FRG, p.44; FRMP FRC, p.11; FRMP FRD, p.16; FRMP FRL, p.9.  
21  France subsequently noted that the PFRA methodology is described in the specific PFRA documents. 

15 

 
 
                                                 
2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

The identification of flood risk areas has been coordinated with neighbouring Member States 
in  the  FRMP  for  the  Rhine  (FRC)22  and  for  the  Scheldt  (FRA)  via  the  International  Scheldt 
Commission23.  The  FRMP  for  the  Rhone  (FRD)  discusses  coordination  and  information 
exchange with  Switzerland and  Italy but  does not  refer specifically to  activities in  the PFRA 
(or  FHRM)  stages24.  Information  was  not  found  in  the  FRMP  regarding  international 
coordination for the Adour-Garonne (FRF), with includes catchments shared with Spain.  

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

There  is  no  information  available  in  the  FRMPs  or  the  reporting  sheets  for  any  of  the  five 
UoMs assessed regarding the ways which the PFRA was used in developing the FHRMs.25, 26 

2.2 

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

Links  to  the  flood  hazard  and  flood  risk  maps  have  been  presented  in  all  the  five  FRMPs 
assessed;  examples  of  the  maps  themselves  are  not  reproduced  within  the  FRMPs.  For  the 

Scheldt (FRA), Rhone (FRD) and La Réunion (FRL), the FHRM maps can be viewed via the 
same links as those for maps of the APSFRs (see above). For the Rhine and Adour-Garonne, 

the following links provide the FHRMs:  

 Rhine (FRC): 

http://www.grand-est.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/territoires-a-risques-importants-d-

inondation-tri-r6724.html 

 Adour-Garonne (FRF): 

http://www.occitanie.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/la-cartographie-des-tri-sur-le-
bassin-adour-a20590.html 

The FHRMs identify floods from fluvial sources and, in some of the FRMPs, seawater floods 
in coastal and transitional waters. Other sources of flooding, including pluvial, are not shown 

in  the  FHRMs  or  indicated  in  the  FRMPs:  the  maps  do  not  include  groundwater  floods  or 

22  FRMP FRC, p. 21. 
23  Reporting sheet for the Scheldt FRMP (FRA). 
24  FRMP FRD, p. 18. 
25  Reporting sheet for FRA; reporting sheet for FRG; reporting sheet for FRC; reporting sheet for FRD; reporting 

sheet for FRL. 

26  France subsequently  noted that the  methodology  to develop the FHRM  is described in  circulaire of 16 July 

2012: http://circulaire.legifrance.gouv.fr/pdf/2012/08/cir_35706.pdf 

16 

 
 
                                                 
floods from artificial water bearing structures. In addition, floods from no specific sources, as 
well as floods originating from more than one source of flooding, have not been identified27. 

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

While  the  FRMPs  for  the  Scheldt  (FRA)  and  the  Rhine  (FRC)  refer  to  coordination  with 

neighbouring  Member  States,  as  indicated  above  they  do  not  provide  information  on  shared 
flood risk areas or coordination specifically on mapping28, 29. 

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

According to the reporting sheets and all five FRMPs assessed: 

 The  FHRMs  were  used  to  set  priorities  and  identify  priority  locations  for  flood  risk 
management (e.g. properties and other assets, economic activities) in the FRMPs. France 

has formally designated APSFRs and the FHRM work and has developed local flood risk 
strategies for each APSFR.  

 The FHRMs were used in the public participation process (see section 7). 

 Measures have been defined based on the FHRMs. 

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  FRMP.  No 
indications were found in the FRMPs assessed30.  

27  The  assessment of  France’s PFRA noted that,  while the  analysis of  historic  floods considered all sources of 
flooding,  projections  of  future  floods  only  covered  fluvial  and  seawater  sources.  European  Commission, 
Assessment of data and information reported by Member States on their Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments 
and  identification  of Areas  of  Potentially  Significant  Flood  Risk  under  the  Floods  Directive  Member  State 
Report: [FR] - [France]. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/PFRA%20Report%20-%20FR.pdf 

28  FRMP FRA; FRMP FRC. 
29  France subsequently remarked that there are no transboundary APSFRs. 
30  France  subsequently  informed  that  there  were  updates  to  the  FHRMs  in  October  2014, July  2015,  and  May 

2017. 

17 

 
 
                                                 
 
2.4 

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

The FHRM assessment identified the following areas for further development for France31: 

 France  reported  differences  in  the  number  of APSFRs  identified  in  the  PFRA  and  those 

reported in the FHRMs32.  

 According  to  Article  6(2),  the  preparation  of  FHRMs  for  APSFRs  shared  with  other 
Member States shall be subject to prior exchange of information between Member States 
concerned. No information was reported for some UoMs33 on shared international flood 
risk areas34. 

 According  to  Art.  6(4)(b),  Member  States  shall  report  for  each  probability  scenario  the 
flood  extent  and  the  water  depths  or  level,  as  appropriate.  Some  UoMs  (FRA,  FRB1, 
FRB2 and FRC) do not show water depth/level in their FHRMs.  

 According  to Art.6(5)(a),  flood  risk  maps  shall  show  the  potential  adverse  consequences 
associated with flood scenarios in terms of number of inhabitants affected. Some UoMs 
(FRG and FRJ) did not report the number of inhabitants affected.  

 According  to  Article  6(5)(c)  Member  States  should  report  potentially  affected  protected 
areas  identified  in  annex  IV  (i)  (iii)  and  (v)  to  Directive  2000/60/EC:  respectively, 

drinking  water  abstraction  areas,  recreation  and  bathing  waters,  and  areas  for  the 
protection of habitats and species including Natura 2000 sites.  

 Climate change was not included in the analysis35. 
 There  are  no  potential  adverse  consequences  on  the  environment  displayed  in  the  maps: 
that  is,  no  UoMs  indicate  potential  adverse  consequences  on  Protected  Areas  from 

medium probability fluvial floods.  

 Concerning coastal floods, some UoMs (FRD and FRF) did not report water depth/level as 

per Article 6(4).  

None  of  these  points  are  explicitly  addressed  within  the  FRMPs  assessed  or  the  reporting 
sheets. However, a review of maps indicates that numbers of inhabitants are shown for FRG, 

though not for FRJ; water depth/levels are now shown in the FHRMs.  

31  For the  FHRM assessment, please see: European Commission, Assessment of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk 

Maps – Member State Report: FR France, 2014. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/FR%20FHRM%20Report.pdf  

32  France subsequently noted that one APSFR was missing in the reporting for APSFRs (2012-2014), however it 

was added in the update of the reporting of FHRMs in May 2017. 

33  Specifically for the Rhine (FRC), Scheldt (FRA), Meuse (FRB1), and Sambre (FRB2). 
34  There are none, according to France. 
35  France subsequently indicated that coastal flooding is incorporated in the maps. 

18 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
2.5  Good practices and areas for further development  

The following good practice was identified:  

 The methodology for the development of the FRMP itself is well described in a clear way. 

The following areas for further development were identified:  

 The FRMPs assessed provide limited details on the prior steps: they included only limited 
information on the APSFRs and describe only briefly the methodology followed. Some 
internet links in the FRMPs assessed do not work. 

19 

 
 
 
 
3.   Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

The objectives in the five FRMPs assessed are defined at three levels: national, UoM and also 

at the local/APSFR level. 

The FRMPs refer to the following three objectives set at national level36: 

 Improve the safety of populations exposed; 

 Stabilise  in  the  short  term  and  reduce  in  the  long  term  the  costs  of  damages  linked  to 

floods; 

 Strongly reduce the period for returning to normal in stricken territories. 

The FRMPs assessed each set  five objectives. While the objectives vary  across the plans, all 
five  FRMPs  assessed  contain  an  objective  for  sustainable  spatial  planning:  for  the  Adour-

Garonne  (FRF),  for  example,  the  objective  is  the  following:  Sustainably  manage  territories, 
better taking into account the risk of flooding with the goal of reducing vulnerability.  

All  five  FRMPs  assessed  include  an  objective  to  improve  information.  For  the  Scheldt  plan 

(FRA), the objective is to: Improve knowledge of flood risks and the sharing of knowledge, to 
inform decisions and make actors aware of their responsibilities.  

The  five  FRMPs  assessed  also  have  objectives  on  governance. The  Rhine  FRMP  (FRC),  for 

example,  calls  for  promoting  cooperation  among  actors.  Other  objectives  seen  include 
strengthening the resilience of the territory. The plan for La Réunion (FRL), for example, calls 

for reducing current vulnerability and increasing the flood resilience of the territory.  

The  five  FRMPs  assessed  also  indicate  more  detailed  objectives  under  their  five  main  ones. 

This is the case, for example, for the Rhone (FRD) FRMP, where one of the main objectives is 
to better address flood risk in planning and to reduce the cost of damages; there are also three 

sub-objectives,  for  example  to  improve  knowledge  about  territorial  vulnerabilities,  reduce 
these vulnerabilities and respect principles for territorial planning adapted to flood risk.  

Moreover,  for  each  APSFR  identified,  a  local  flood  risk  management  strategy  is  to  be 
prepared37.  Elements  of  these  local  strategies  are  presented  in  the  FRMPs:  for  example,  the 
Scheldt (FRA) and Rhine (FRC) FRMPs present the objectives for each of the UoM’s APSFRs. 

36  The  national  objectives  are  set  in  the  National  strategy  for  flood  risk  management  (stratégie  nationale  de 

gestion des risques d’inondation), May 2014, available at (October 2014 version): 

37  These local strategies are not reviewed here.  

20 

 
 
                                                 
In  the  Scheldt  FRMP,  four  objectives  are  identified  for  the  Lys  APSFR;  the  first  calls  for 
actions to manage risk and protect urbanised areas, preserve and protect flood plains and retain 

water upstream.   

Consequently, in the FRMPs assessed: 

 The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods in all five FRMPs;  

 The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding in one of the five FRMPs: the plan 
for  the  Adour-Garonne,  for  example,  calls  improving  the  management  of  protection 
works again flooding. In addition, several sub-objectives and actions seek to reduce the 

likelihood of flooding (as seen above in the example of an objective for the Lys APSFR 
in the Scheldt FRMP). 

 The objectives refer to non-structural initiatives in all five FRMPs assessed. 

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

In France, objectives are neither specific nor measurable38.  

Nonetheless,  it  is  clear  which  measures  are  allocated  to  which  objectives,  as  the  FRMPs 

contain a hierarchy of objectives and then for each, an identification of actions to be taken, i.e. 
measures  (called  dispositions  in  the  plans).  However,  it  cannot  be  assessed  from  the 

information  available how much the measures will  contribute to  achievement of each FRMP 
objective.  

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

The national  objectives  and the objectives of all the FRMPs assessed seek to  reduce  adverse 

consequences  from  floods.  As  noted  above,  the  national  objectives  refer  to  the  safety  of 
persons and the costs of flood damages. Environmental aspects are mentioned in the objectives 

set for some of the FRMPs assessed. In some of the FRMPs assessed, the objectives include a 
reference to the protection of cultural heritage.  

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

Of the five FRMPs assessed, only the plan for Adour-Garonne contains  an objective directly 

linked to the reduction in the likelihood of flooding. In addition, several objectives, including 
those for spatial planning, and their sub-objectives and actions, seek to reduce the likelihood of 

38  France subsequently described these objectives as strategic.  

21 

 
 
                                                 
flooding. The objectives for several APSFRs in the FRMPs assessed refer to the reduction of 
flood risk39 and of the likelihood of flooding. 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

The objectives are based 1) on the national objectives and policy and 2) on an assessment of 

the basin. The FRMPs take into consideration current knowledge of sea level rise and include 
measures to study in more detail climate change effects on a regional scale.  

The  FRMPs  do  not  provide  detail  on  the  process  for  determining  their  objectives;  however, 

they do refer to discussions within commissions under the Basin Committees and to flood risk 
pilot groups that bring together government bodies and other stakeholders (see section 7).  

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following good practices were identified: 

 All  five  FRMPs  assessed  have  a  coherent,  hierarchical  approach  from  national  to  UoM 

objectives and then to sub-objectives and lines of action.  

 All five FRMPs assessed include objectives to address flood risks in spatial planning.  

 France has developed flood risk plans at APSFR level, that translate FRMP objectives into 

local goals and actions.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

 The objectives at national and UoM levels are not specific or measurable. 

39  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. 

22 

 
 
 
                                                 
4.   Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

France has reported a total of 601 individual measures and 47 aggregated40 measures across all 
14 UoMs, for a total of 648 measures41.  

The  measures  cover  all  four  aspects  of  flood  risk  management:  prevention,  protection, 
preparedness  and  recovery  and  review  (in  addition,  France  reported  ‘no  action’  and  ‘other’ 

measures). France has reported some measures to more than one measure type (see Annex B 
for an overview of the measure types): when reporting for each measure type is counted, there 
are  a  total  of  743  individual  and  47  aggregated  measures,  for  a  total  of  790  (this  implies 

double-counting). Across the four measure aspects: 

 313 prevention measures are reported (40% of the 790 measures) 

 155 protection measures (20%) 

 181 prevention measures (23%) 

 51 recovery and review measures (6%) 

In addition, France has reported 81 ‘other’ measures (10%) and three ‘no action’ measures (less 

than 1%).  

The number of measures per UoM ranges from 23 (in the Mayotte UoM, FRM) to 135 in the 
Seine  UoM  (FRH).  For  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  while  the  number  of  measures  varies,  the 

shares  across  the  measure  aspects  remain  more  or  less  similar  to  the  national  average  (one 
difference  is  that  La  Réunion,  FRL  contains  a  lower  share  of  protection  measures  than  the 

other UoMs assessed and a higher share of preparedness measures):  

 Scheldt  (FRA):  prevention:  17  (35%),  protection:  12  (24%),  preparedness:  8  (16%), 

Recovery: 5 (10%), other: 7 (14%)  

 Adour-Garonne  (FRf):  prevention:  16  (33%),  protection:  13  (27%),  preparedness:  11 

(22%), Recovery: 6 (12%), other: 3 (6%);  

 Rhine  (FRC):  prevention:  18  (38%),  protection:  10  (21%),  preparedness:  14  (30%), 

Recovery: 1 (2%), other:4 (9%); 

40 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. 

41  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  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 

23 

 
 
                                                 
 Rhône  (FRD):  prevention:  20  (38%),  protection:  10  (19%),  preparedness:  15  (29%), 

Recovery: 6 (12%), other:6 (12%); 

 La  Réunion  (FRL):  prevention:  31  (36%),  protection:  10  (11%),  preparedness:  31  (36%), 

Recovery: 5 (6%), other:7 (8%).  

The  47  aggregated  measures  were  reported  only  in  one  of  the  14  UoMs,  Martinique  (FRJ), 

which was not among the five assessed. While only aggregated measures are reported for this 
UoM, only individual measures are reported for the other 13 UoMs in France42.  

4.1 

Cost of measures 

France did  not  report  any  information  about the  costs for the measures,  nor was information 
found in the five FRMPs assessed43. 

4.2 

Funding of measures 

Neither the reporting sheets nor the FRMPs provide information about sources of funding for 
the  measures.  Some  of  the  FRMPs  –  for  example  for  the  Adour-Garonne  (FRF)  and  La 

Réunion – refer to sources of funding for past floods plans and for flood actions under the first 
cycle of RBMP: EU funds are mentioned, as well as national financing and (for La Réunion), 
regional financing44, 45. 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

In the FRMPs, measures (called ‘dispositions’) are presented at a strategic level (not specified 
to specific locations, but as actions across the UoM and formulated in a generic way). None of 

the FRMPs assessed 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. 

42  Neither the FRMPs nor France’s reporting indicate how individual and aggregated measures were defined. 
43  France  subsequently  informed  that  the  implementation  of  FRMPs  is  mainly  done  through  financial 
programmes  (called  PAPI  -  Programmes  d’actions  de  prévention  des  inondations).  PAPIs  contain  very 
detailed  actions,  with  a  detailed  time  schedule  and  cost  and  financing  elements.  During  the  last  two  years 
(2016 and 2017), around EUR 367.5 million  has been invested,  with  different sources of funding, including 
EUR  155  million  from  the  “Fonds  de  prévention  des  risques  naturels  majeurs”,  which  is  a  national  fund 
dedicated to natural risk prevention. 

44  FRMP FRF, p. 20; FRMP FRL, pp. 33, 35, 40. 
45  As noted above, France subsequently informed that FRMPs are implemented via the PAPI, which in turn are 

financed in large part from a national fund dedicated to risk prevention.  

24 

 
 
                                                 
None of the five FRMPs assessed contained a list of measures with further details.  

In its reporting sheets, France provided information for the location of all measures; however, 
this was an open field and it has not been possible to categorise the responses given.  

4.4  Measures and objectives 

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

much they will contribute. It is also not clear whether the objectives will be achieved when all 
measures  are  completed,  also  as  the  measures  themselves  are  not  specific  or  measurable. As 

there  is  a  lack  of  details  on  the  measures  (where,  when,  what...),  it  is  not  possible  to  assess 
progress against the objectives. 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

For the majority of the measures  (602 out of 790), France did not provide information about 

the geographic coverage. For the remaining measures, the geographic coverage was reported as 
the code of the UoM. The UoM was reported as the geographic coverage for all measures in 

the UoM FRA, FRC, FRD, FRG; and for some of the measures in UoM FRL (about 50%). 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

France provided information for the priority of all measures:  

 In total, 381 measures (48% of 790 measures) are indicated as critical priority; 

 18 measures are indicated as very high priority (2%); 

 44 measures are indicated as high priority (6%); 

 344 measures are indicated as moderate priority (44%); 

 And 3 measures, low priority (less than 1%). 

For  three  UoMs  –  Corsica  (FRE),  Seine  and  Normandy  (FRH)  and  Guyana  (FRK)  –  France 
reported  all  measures  as  having  critical  priority.  For  five  UoMs  (including  three  of  the  five 

assessed  here)  France  reported  all  measures  as  having  moderate  priority:  Scheldt  (FRA), 
Meuse (FRB1), Sambre (FRB2), Rhine (FRC) and Rhone (FRD).  

For the other two FRMP assessed, the priorities are quite different: 

 For the Adour-Garonne (FRF), 96% of measures are critical priority and the remaining 4%, 

moderate priority;  

 For La Réunion (FRL), for example, 45% of measures are of critical priority; 20% of very 

high priority; 15% of high priority and 20% of moderate priority.  

25 

 
 
Only  one  of  the  FRMPs  –  for  La  Réunion  (FRL)  –  provides  this  information,  indicating  the 
priorities for each measure (this plan lists the measures and their priorities in an annex). It is 

reported in the other FRMPs and in the reporting sheets only that the measures are all seen as 
having priority as they are associated or related to identified flood risk areas. 

None of the five FRMPs assessed describe methods for setting priorities. The different FRMPs 

refer to the use of cost/benefit analysis, without providing further information on criteria and 
methods.46  The  FRMPs  do  not  indicate,  however,  if  CBA  has  been  used  to  prioritise 
measures47. 

France  did  not  report  any  information  about  the  timetable  of  the  measures.  None  of  the  five 

FRMPs assessed provide information on the timetable of their measures, though they state that 
measures are being defined with input from the regions.  

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

France reported that the RBD/UoM authority (the Prefect  Coordinator of the respective river 

basin) is responsible for implementing the FRMPs. 

The  FRMPs  themselves  are  to  be  implemented  mainly  through  local  flood  risk  management 
strategies  (Stratégies  Locales  de  Gestion  des  Risques  d’Inondation)  at  the  APSFR  level, 

implemented  by  municipalities,  inter-municipal  structures  and  other  government  bodies 
through programmes called PAPI (Programmes d’actions de prévention des inondations).  

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

France reported the progress of all measures:  

 Two measures have been completed (<1% of all measures reported for France); 

 For 202 measures, construction is ongoing (26% of the 790 measures); 

 For 341 measures, progress is ongoing (43% of the total); 

 241 measures have not started yet (31%).  

There are significant differences between the UoMs assessed in terms of progress of measures. 
All  the  measures  for  the  Rhine  (FRC)  and  Rhone  (FRD)  UoMs  are  reported  as  ‘progress 

ongoing’.  For  both  the  Scheldt  (FRA)  and  the  Adour-Garonne  (FRF),  just  over  50%  of 
measures  were  reported  as  ‘construction  ongoing’.  However,  for  La  Réunion  (FRL),  72%  of 

measures are reported as ‘not started’.  

46  FRMP FRA, p.25; FRMP FRC, p.45; FRMP FRD, p.59; FRMP FRG, p.40; FRMP FRL, p12. 
47  France subsequently informed that cost and benefit analysis is applied at project level. 

26 

 
 
                                                 
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.  

Under other Community Acts, France reported 114 measures (14% of the total of 790): for all 

of these France identified either the WFD (for 87 measures) or, for 27 measures in the Seine 
UoM/RBD (FRH), the RBMP48. 

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

France has reported spatial planning measures in all UoMs: specifically, measures to prevent 
development in flood-prone areas are found in all (measure type M2149).  

Each  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  contains  an  objective  for  sustainable  spatial  planning  (see 
section 3), along with actions to achieve the objective. For example, the Rhone FRMP (FRD) 

has  an  action  to  avoid  the  increase  of  vulnerability  through  the  orientation  of  urban 
development  outside  risk  zones  (FRMP  disposition  1-6).  A  similar  measure  is  seen  in  the 

Scheldt  FRMP  (FRA)  to  orient  urban  development  of  territories  outside  of  flood  zones  and 
ensure attention to exposed receptors in urban planning documents. 

Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in all five FRMPs assessed. 
For example, the Rhone FRMP (FRD) contains an action to restore the natural functioning of 

environments  to  allow  the  reduction  of  floods  and  floods  from  sea  water  (disposition  2-6). 
Similarly,  the  Scheldt  FRMP  (FRA)  contains  an  action  to  conserve  and  restore  natural  flood 

zones.  

Measures that specifically consider nature conservation: the FRMPs for the Scheldt (FRA), 
Rhine  (FRC),  La  Réunion  (FRL)  and  Rhone  (FRD)  state  that  nature  conservation  was  taken 

into consideration: for example, the Scheldt FRMP contains an action to halt the disappearance 
and degradation of coastal wetlands and natural areas and preserve, maintain and protect their 

functionality.  

Similar  detail  was  not  found  in  the  FRMP  for  Adour-Garonne  (FRF),  though  its  reporting 

sheets  –  and  indeed  those  for  all  of  France’s  UoMs  –  contain  a  general  reference  that 
implementation will support nature conservation.50 

48  In French, the Schéma directeur d'aménagement et de gestion des eaux (SDAGE). 
49  Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in  flood prone areas, 

such as land use planning policies or regulation. 

50  Chapter "Summary of the Flood Extent" in the reporting sheets of the assessed FRMPs. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
Some, but not all of the five FRMPs assessed make a brief reference that they shall take into 
consideration  navigation and port infrastructure:  this  is  the case for actions in  the Scheldt 
(FRA) and Rhine (FRC) FRMPs51.  

No  reference  has  been  found  in  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  to  dredging  to  increase  the  river 
channel capacity and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation purposes.  

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The role of insurance policies is not discussed in any of the five FRPMs assessed. There is also 

no information provided with regard to the type of insurance available or to be developed for 
areas that could potentially flood52.  

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

Neither the FRMPs nor the reporting sheets provide information on the process for monitoring 

the progress of implementation. 

France’s reporting sheets state that progress indicators will be developed from 2016 onwards. 

Further  information  is  provided  in  four  of  the  five  FRMPs:  for  example,  the  Scheldt  FRMP 
(FRA) mentions that indicators will be prepared  at  UoM level  by the Floods  Commission  of 

the  Artois-Picardie  Basin  (Commission  inundation  du  Bassin  Artois-Picardie).  The  Rhine 
FRMP (FRC), for example, explains that indicators to follow the implementation of the Plan 

will be identified early in the implementation cycle on the basis of the indicators set out in the 
national  strategy  for  flood  risk  management  (the  strategy  identifies  a  set  of  indicators  to  be 

used to follow the progress of its implementation and that of the FRMPs and lower-level plans 
that  address  flood  risk53).  The  Rhine  FRMP  moreover  notes  that  work  will  be  carried  out  at 
national  level  to  define  a  baseline  for  flood  risk  management.  The  FRMPs  for  the  Adour-
Garonne  (FRF)  and  for  La  Réunion  (FRL)  also  refer  to  indicators;  however,  no  information 

was found in the FRMP for the Rhone, FRD.  

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 

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

51  Reporting  sheets,  chapter  "Summary  of  the  Flood  Extent".  It  is  noted  that  inland  water  navigation  is  not 

relevant on La Reunion (FRL). 

52  France  subsequently  clarified  the  absence  of  discussion  regarding  insurance  is  due  to  the  existence  of  a 

national insurance system. 

53  National  strategy  for  flood  risk  management  (stratégie  nationale  de  gestion des  risques  d’inondation),  May 

2014, available at (October 2014 version): 

28 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
Table 7 

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

FRA 

FRC 

FRD 

FRF 

FRL 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Integration of FRMP and RBMP in a 
single plan 

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and 
RBMP  

Coordination between authorities 
responsible for developing FRMPs and 
RBMPs  

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

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

Planning of win-win and no-regret 
measures in FRMPs  

The RBMP PoMs 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 54  

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 a  

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 

54  France subsequently clarified that environmental authorisation is required for flood risk work permits. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
contribute to the achievement of WFD 
Environmental Objectives  
Notes: a based on MS reporting under the WFD 

FRA 

FRC 

FRD 

FRF 

FRL 

In each UoM/RBD, both the FRMPs and RBMPs are managed under the Basin Committee and 
the  Prefect  coordinator  of  the  basin.  The  FRMP  for  the  Scheldt  (FRA)  provides  a  schematic 

representation  of  the  relationship  and  coordination  between  the  WFD  and  FD  management. 
The  other  FRMPs  do  not  contain  this  scheme  but  describe  the  administrative  relationships 

between  the  WFD  and  FD.  The  FRMP  for  the  Rhine  (FRC)  refers  to  a  national  guidance 
document on the FRMP and FD on the competence areas of the Flood Directive and the Water 
Framework Directive55. 

It is mentioned in all FRMPs that joint consultation has taken place of the FRMP and RBMP. 
The coordination between the FRMPs and the environmental objectives set out in Art. 4 of the 

WFD is being done. 

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

 France has reported the existence of spatial planning measures in all of its FRMPs. 

 All five FRMPs assessed include NWRMs. 

The following areas for further development were identified:  

 The information provided in the FRMPs on their measures are not specific and measurable;  

 The  FRMPs  do  not  provide  information  on  the  cost  of  measures  or  potential  sources  of 

funding. 

 The approach to prioritisation is not clear: France has reported all measures in some UoMs 
with the same priority. The FRMPs assessed do not provide an indication how priorities 
were set.   

 The  FRMPs  assessed  provide  limited  information  on  the  process  to  monitor  progress,  on 
possible  indicators  and  a  baseline,  though  it  is  indicated  that  these  will  be  developed 
early in the implementation period on the basis of work at national level.   

55  FRMP FRC, p. 15. 

30 

 
 
 
                                                 
5.   Consideration of climate change 

France’s national strategy for flood risk management refers to climate change, warning that sea 

level rise and storms could increase coastal flooding and moreover that climate impacts could 
be  particularly  strong  in  overseas  departments56.  France  addressed  coastal  flooding  in  its 
FHRMs57. 

All  FRMPs  assessed  refer  to  climate  change  impacts,  again  mainly  in  terms  of  the  impacts 
linked to the change of sea level: this is seen, for example in the Scheldt FRMP (FRA). The 
Rhone  FRMP  (FRD)  provides  information  on  the  timeframe  within  which  climate  impacts 

were  considered  (year  2100). The  five  FRMPs  assessed  do  not  refer  to  the  national  Climate 
Change Adaption  Strategy,  nor  the  follow-up  Plans58.  In  general,  the  FRMPs  assessed  make 
few references to climate change and have not  addressed this topic in depth. Moreover, their 
references focus on sea level rise; climate effects on land, such as changes in precipitation, are 
not addressed in the FRMPs59.  

All FRMPs assessed contain measures that refer to climate change. The Scheldt FRMP (FRA) 
reports that the results of studies on sensitivity of streams to flooding from sea-level rise have 

been included in the design of measures. Measures in the Rhone FRMP (FRD) and the Adour-
Garonne FRMP (FRF) will study the impacts of sea level rise in the coastal areas. The Rhine 

FRMP (FRC) includes a provision that local flood risk plans should take into account climate 
impacts  on  safety  margins. The  FRMP  for  La  Réunion  calls  for  states  that  additional  further 

research  is  required  to  assess  the  future  impact  of  climate  change  on  flooding  and  also  for 
public  awareness  programmes  on  climate  change  to  integrate  information  on  the  impacts  on 

flooding phenomena. 

5.1  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate 

change 

The following good practice was identified: 

 France’s  national  flood  risk  strategy  refers  to  climate  change  and  all  FRMPs  assessed 

include measures that address potential climate impacts or call for their study.  

56  The  national  objectives  are  set  in  the  National  strategy  for  flood  risk  management  (stratégie  nationale  de 

gestion des risques d’inondation), May 2014 

57  France  subsequently  noted  that  the  FHRMs  for  coastal  flooding  take  into  account  the  short  term  impact  of 
climate  change  (+20  cm)  and  include  an  additional  map  taking  into  account  long  term  climate  change  (+60 
cm). 

58  France adopted a national  strategy  for adaptation to climate  change in 2006, then a first national adaptation 
plan in 2011. The government’s 2016 roadmap for ecological transition provides the broad lines for the plan’s 
revision.  

59  France subsequently explained that this is because the FRMPs are based on information available at the time. 

31 

 
 
                                                 
The following area for further development was identified: 

 The FRMPs assessed make few references to  climate change and have not addressed this 
topic in depth. These references focus on sea level rise; climate effects such as changes 

in precipitation, are not addressed in the FRMPs. Moreover, the FRMPs do not refer to 
the French national climate change adaptation strategy. 

32 

 
 
 
6.   Cost-benefit analysis 

The five FRMPs assessed refer to CBA for future actions; the FRMPs and the reporting sheets 

do not, however, indicate if CBA has been used for the preparation of the plans, for example 
for the selection or prioritisation of measures.  

The FRMP Rhine, for example, mentions that measures are required to undergo a cost/benefit 
analysis60  but  does  not  provide  further  information  on  the  methods;  it  is  therefore  unclear  if 
cost benefit analysis has been used in the preparation of the plan and its actions61. 

The  FRMP  for  the  Rhone  (FRD)  refers  to  several  actions  to  be  taken  related  to  cost/benefit 
analysis:  for  example,  it  calls  on  local  administrations  to  assess  the  potential  costs  of  flood 

damages;  it  also  calls  for  local  strategies  to  address  coastal  erosion  and  indicates  that  the 
choice of interventions should be made considering cost/benefit analysis62.   

No information  was found in  the reporting sheets or the FMRPs assessed indicating whether 

the methods used or planned will consider possible multi-benefits of measures, nor if they will 
be used to assess measures with transnational effects.  

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following area for further development has been identified:  

 The  FRMPs  provide  little  information  on  cost/benefit  analysis  and  it  is  unclear,  from  the 

documents accessed, if it was applied or in what circumstances it will be used. 

60  FRMP Rhine FRC, p.11. 
61  France informed subsequently that CBA is applied at project level – and the methodology is detailed in: 

https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Th%C3%A9ma%20-
%20Analyse%20multicrit%C3%A8re%20des%20projets%20de%20pr%C3%A9vention%20des%20inondatio
ns%20-%20Guide.pdf  
62  FRMP FRD, pp. 47, 59. 

33 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

Based  on  the  FRMPs  and  the  information  provided  in  the  reporting  sheets,  the  Competent 
Authorities and the Units of Management identified for the Floods Directive have not changed. 

France has not reported new information to WISE since 2011. 

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the five UoMs 
assessed  concerning  the  draft  FRMPs.  Information  on  how  the  consultation  was  actually 
carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section63: 

Table 8 

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  

FRA 

FRC 

FRD 

FRF 

FRL 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

Public  consultation  via  Internet  was  organised  in  all  five  UoMs,  and  the  draft  FRMPs  were 
provided as downloads on national websites and on the web sites of the UoM authorities.  

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

63  Based on the reporting sheets and the FRMPs assessed.  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 9 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

FRA 

FRC 

FRD 

FRF 

FRL 

Via Internet  

Digital social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

Postal written comments/ Direct mailing (post) 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The  public  and  stakeholders  could  submit  comments  via  internet.  Direct  stakeholders  were 

informed and invited via direct invitation.  

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

Table 10 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  
Direct mailing (post)64 
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 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

The documents were downloadable via the internet sites of both the national government and 
the river basin administrations. For example, the draft FRMP Rhone was available at: 

 www.sauvonsleau.fr 

 www.rhone-mediterranee and 

 eaufrance.fr/gestion/inondations.  

64  France subsequently informed that documents for the consultation were provided by direct mailing for some of 

the FRMPs. 

35 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

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

development of the five FRMPs assessed: 

Table 11 

Groups of stakeholders  

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)65 
NGOs including nature protection, social issues (e.g. children, housing) 

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  

Academia / Research Institutions  

Other* 
Note: * In France, ‘other’ refers to the Water Agencies.  

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The  following  common  approach  has  been  applied  in  the  five  UoMs  assessed:  from  2013, 

stakeholders  and  relevant  authorities  were  involved  in  the  planning  process  under  the  Basin 
Committees. This included municipalities, other territorial actors involved in planning (acteurs 

de  l'aménagement  du  territoire)  such  as  local  and  inter-municipal  authorities,  the  Water 
Agencies  in  the  UoMs  (e.g.  the Artois-Picardy  Water Agency  for  the  Scheldt  FRMP).  Other 

stakeholders involved include NGOs and agriculture representatives.   

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

Table 12 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders 

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory groups  

Involvement in drafting  

FRA 

FRC 

FRD 

FRF 

FRL 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

65  France  subsequently  informed  that  private  businesses  were  actively  involved  in  the  development  of  some 

FRMPs.  

36 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Workshops and technical meetings 

✔ 

Formation of alliances  

Information days 

FRA 

FRC 

FRD 

FRF 

FRL 

Other * 
Note: * “Other” in France refers to involvement via the Basin Committees 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

In  parallel  to  the  consultation  procedure  of  the  measures,  the  regional  environment 
management authorities contacted stakeholders directly for their comments  on the draft plan. 

The  information  available  does  not  indicate  how  this  was  organised.  The  three  major 
stakeholder  groups  in  this  step  were  flood  warning/defence  authorities,  drainage  authorities 

and local/regional authorities. 

The FRMPs were prepared under the Basin Committees. The FRMPs for the Scheldt (FRA), 
Rhone  (FRD)  and  Adour-Garonne  (FRF)  state  that  the  UoM’s  Basin  Committee  created  a 

Floods  Commission:  for  the  Adour-Garonne,  the  Commission  included  regional  and  local 
government  bodies  (including  inter-municipal  structure),  civil  society  and  government 

authorities. The FRMP for the Rhine (FRC) instead indicates a Working Group on Floods was 
created  under  the  Basin  Committee:  the  members  listed  include  local  governments,  the 

chamber of agriculture of the Lorraine Region and insurance company representatives. For La 
Réunion (FRL), a ‘pilot committee’ was created for the implementation of the Floods Directive 

and  this  committee  designated  a  group  for  the  preparation  of  the  FRMP,  including 
representatives  from  the  State  and  the  Region,  from  the  General  Council  of  the  Region,  the 

Association of Mayors, the Basin Committee, municipalities and inter-municipal structures. 

7.4 

Effects of consultation 

No information was found in the five FRMPs assessed, or in France’s reporting sheets, on how 
consultation  and  the  active  involvement  of  stakeholders  affected  the  FRMPs.  Detailed 
information  on  public  consultation  and  the  active  involvement  of  stakeholders  as  well  as  on 

how  inputs  from  the  consultation  influenced  the  plans  are  mentioned  in  an  accompanying 
document  called  the  “déclaration  environnementale”  available  on  the  web  pages  for  the 
FRMPs66.  

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

All five FRMPs assessed underwent an SEA procedure.  

66  For example, the document for the Rhone (FRD) FRMP is available at:  

http://www.rhone-mediterranee.eaufrance.fr/docs/dir-inondations/pgri/20151207_DeclarationEnv-PGRI-RM-
VF.pdf  

37 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
For the Rhone FRMP, the SEA report (Evaluation Environnementale du PGRI) is indicated as 
a separate document that is part of Vol. 1 of the plan itself67. The other FRMPs assessed do not 
include references to their SEAs. All SEA documents are available online68. 

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

governance 

The following good practice was identified: 

 For  each  FRMP,  a  range  of  government  bodies  as  well  as  some  non-governmental 

stakeholders were involved in preparation, under the aegis of the Basin Committee. 

67  Available at: http://www.rhone-mediterranee.eaufrance.fr/gestion/inondations/pgri.php.  
68  For the Scheldt FRMP (FRA), for example:  http://consultation.eau-artois-picardie.fr/docs/PGRI-

EvaluationEnvironnementale.pdf 
For  the  Rhine  (FRC):  http://www.grand-est.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/plans-de-gestion-des-risques-d-
inondation-pgri-des-a15509.html 
For the Rhone (FRD): http://www.rhone-mediterranee.eaufrance.fr/gestion/inondations/pgri.php  
For  the  Adour-Garonne  (FRF):  http://www.occitanie.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/le-plan-de-gestion-des-
risques-d-inondation-pgri-a22197.html  
For  La  Réunion  (FRL):  http://www.reunion.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/plan-de-gestion-du-risque-d-
inondation-pgri-r300.html  

38 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

This Annex  gives  an  overview  of  the  data  on  measures  provided  by  France  in  the  reporting 

sheets. These tables and charts were used for the preparation of section 4 on measures.   

Background & method 

This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans 
(FRMPs). The tables and charts below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the 

Member States and were used by the Member State assessor to complete the questions on the 
Flood measures. The data are extracted from the XMLs (reporting sheets) reported by MS for 

each FRMP, and are split into the following sections: 

 Measures overview – Tabulates the number of measures for each UoM; 

 Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; 

 Measures details: name & location – Location & geographic coverage; 

 Measure details: authorities – Name of responsible authority & level of responsibility; 

 Measure details: objectives – Objectives, Category of priority & Timetable; 

 Measure details: progress – Progress of implementation & Progress description; 

 Measure details: other – Other Community Acts.  

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive)69, not 
all fields are mandatory, and, as such, not all MS reported information for all fields.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

data sorted. 

69http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/schemas/dir200760ec/resources 

39 

 
 
                                                 
 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 table70 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 

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

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

40 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ............ 45 
Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect .............. 45 

Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Category of priority by measure aspect ...................... 48 
Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Category of priority by UoM ...................................... 49 

Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A8: Progress of implementation by measure aspect .......... 51 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A9: Progress of implementation by UoM .......................... 53 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ....................................................................................... 42 
Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM .................................. 42 
Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM ................................ 43 
Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, 
including duplicates .................................................................................................................. 43 
Table A5 - Category of priority by measure aspect .................................................................. 47 
Table A6 - Category of priority by UoM .................................................................................. 48 
Table A7 - Responsibility by UoM ........................................................................................... 50 
Table A8 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect ..................................................... 51 
Table A9 – Progress of implementation by UoM ..................................................................... 52 
Table A10 – Other Community Acts by measure aspect .......................................................... 55 
Table A11 - Other Community Acts by UoM ........................................................................... 55 

41 

 
 
 
Table A1 - Total number of measures 

Number of individual measures 

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

Number of aggregated measures  

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

Total number of measures  

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

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

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

601 

743 

47 

47 

648 

790 

23 – 135 

56 

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

No action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery and review  Other  Grand 
Total 

M11  M21  M22  M23  M24  M31  M32  M33  M34  M35  M41  M42  M43  M44  M51  M52  M53  M61 

FRA 

FRB1 

FRB2 

FRC 

FRD 

FRE 

FRF 

FRG 

FRH 

FRI 

FRK 

FRL 

FRM 

Grand Total 

3 

3 

2 

8 

2 

8 

7 

12 

3 

9 

18 

3 

2 

3 

2 

79 

1 

1 

18 

1 

3 

24 

1 

5 

1 

5 

4 

3 

5 

9 

20 

5 

3 

7 

1 

13 

5 

13 

5 

9 

6 

8 

10 

19 

8 

10 

20 

2 

69 

128 

5 

2 

5 

2 

2 

5 

8 

7 

9 

2 

1 

48 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

6 

3 

1 

1 

4 

1 

8 

1 

3 

1 

2 

5 

2 

5 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

3 

1 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

6 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

7 

2 

1 

1 

4 

2 

8 

2 

1 

3 

1 

3 

5 

5 

4 

3 

5 

2 

2 

4 

1 

19 

20 

23 

27 

41 

39 

42 

1 

6 

1 

6 

4 

1 

3 

6 

11 

5 

3 

18 

2 

67 

1 

1 

2 

7 

3 

2 

3 

2 

4 

2 

2 

8 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

3 

6 

3 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

7 

4 

7 

4 

6 

6 

3 

16 

6 

9 

3 

7 

3 

49 

47 

47 

47 

52 

52 

49 

73 

135 

49 

33 

87 

23 

28 

20 

11 

16 

81 

743 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

M11  M21  M22  M23  M24  M31  M32  M33  M34  M35  M41  M42  M43  M44  M51  M52  M53  M61 

Recovery and review  Other  Grand 
Total 

Average per 
UoM 

<1 

6 

2 

5 

10 

4 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

5 

2 

2 

1 

1 

6 

57 

Notes:  The  total  includes  measures  assigned  to  more  than  one  measure  type.  Note  also  that  all  UoMs  have  individual  measures  except  for 
Martinique (FRJ), which is not represented in this table.  

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

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery and review 

M21 

M22 

FRJ 

3 

1 

M23 

3 

M24 

6 

M31 

14 

M34 

4 

M41 

3 

M43 

3 

M51 

1 

M52 

1 

M53 

2 

Other 

M61 

6 

Grand Total 

47 

3 

Grand Total 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. Note also that only Martinique (FRJ) has aggregated measures and 
only this UoM is represented in this table. 

47 

14 

3 

1 

2 

1 

4 

3 

3 

6 

1 

6 

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

No 

action  Total 
Indiv. 

Prevention 

Total 

Protection 

Total 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
review 

Total 

Total 

Other 

Agg. 

Indiv. 

Agg. 

Indiv. 

Agg. 

Indiv. 

Agg. 

Indiv. 

Agg. 

Indiv. 

FRA 

FRB1 

FRB2 

FRC 

FRD 

FRE 

FRF 

17 

18 

16 

18 

20 

21 

16 

17 

18 

16 

18 

20 

21 

16 

12 

10 

11 

10 

10 

9 

13 

12 

10 

11 

10 

10 

9 

13 

8 

14 

8 

14 

15 

15 

11 

8 

14 

8 

14 

15 

15 

11 

43 

5 

1 

5 

1 

1 

1 

6 

5 

1 

5 

1 

1 

1 

6 

7 

4 

7 

4 

6 

6 

3 

Total 

Grand 
Total 

7 

4 

7 

4 

6 

6 

3 

49 

47 

47 

47 

52 

52 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No 

action  Total 
Indiv. 

Prevention 

Total 

Protection 

Total 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
review 

Total 

Total 

Other 

Agg. 

Indiv. 

Agg. 

Indiv. 

Agg. 

Indiv. 

Agg. 

Indiv. 

Agg. 

Indiv. 

Total 

Grand 
Total 

FRG 

FRH 

FRI 

FRJ 

FRK 

FRL 

FRM 

Grand 
Total 

3 

3 

3 

3 

13 

29 

75 

16 

15 

31 

8 

29 

75 

16 

13 

15 

31 

8 

18 

6 

23 

12 

6 

10 

5 

6 

23 

12 

18 

6 

10 

5 

6 

18 

17 

11 

8 

31 

5 

18 

17 

11 

6 

8 

31 

5 

4 

4 

14 

1 

1 

5 

2 

4 

14 

1 

4 

1 

5 

2 

6 

16 

16 

6 

9 

3 

7 

3 

6 

9 

6 

3 

7 

3 

73 

135 

49 

47 

33 

87 

23 

13 

300 

313 

18 

137 

155 

6 

175 

181 

4 

47 

51 

6 

81 

87 

790 

<1 

<1 

Average 
per 
UoM 
Notes: Individual measures (Indiv.) and aggregated measures (agg.)  
The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

22 

10 

21 

11 

1 

1 

<1 

13 

13 

<1 

3 

4 

<1 

6 

6 

56 

44 

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

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

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

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

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

45 

 
 
 
 
Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

 Cost (optional field); 

 Cost explanation (optional field). 

France did not report any information in the reporting sheets about the costs or cost explanation of 

measures 

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 

France  provided  information  about  the  location  of  all  measures,  however,  this  was  an  open 
question,  and  as  such,  numerous  different  responses  were  given.  It  was  thus  not  practical  to 

aggregate the information.  

Geographic coverage 

For the majority of the measures (602) France did not provide information about the geographic 

coverage.  For  the  remaining  measures  the  geographic  coverage  was  reported  as  the  code  of  the 
UoM. The UoM was reported as the geographic coverage for all measures in the following UoMs: 

Meuse  (FRB1),  Rhine  (FRC)  and  Mayotte  (FRM).  The  UoM  was  indicated  as  the  geographic 
coverage  for  some  of  the  measures  in  the  following  UoMs: Adour-Garonne  (FRF),  Guadeloupe 

(FRI) and La Réunion (FRL). 

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); 

46 

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

Objectives 

The  Guidance  Document  indicates  that  for  each  measure,  an  “Explanation  of  how  the  measure 
contributes to the objectives” can be provided (this is an optional field).  

France  provided  information  about  the  objectives  of  all  measures,  however,  this  was  an  open 
question,  and  as  such,  numerous  different  responses  were  given.  It  was  thus  not  practical  to 

aggregate the information.  

Category of priority 

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

 Critical; 

 Very high; 

 High; 

 Moderate; 

 Low. 

Table A5 - Category of priority by measure aspect 

Critical 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

Grand Total 

No action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Other 

2 

162 

66 

79 

32 

40 

1 

3 

2 

9 

1 

2 

3 

14 

9 

11 

10 

131 

78 

82 

18 

35 

Grand Total 

3 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

344 

381 

44 

18 

3 

313 

155 

181 

51 

87 

790 

47 

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

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Table A6 - Category of priority by UoM 

Critical 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

Grand Total 

FRA 

FRB1 

FRB2 

FRC 

FRD 

FRE 

FRF 

FRG 

FRH 

FRI 

FRJ 

FRK 

FRL 

FRM 

52 

47 

31 

135 

16 

17 

33 

39 

11 

1 

17 

20 

4 

13 

7 

49 

47 

47 

47 

52 

2 

40 

13 

25 

18 

4 

2 

1 

Grand Total 

381 

Average per UoM 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

27 

18 
1 

44 
3 

344 
25 

3 
<1 

49 

47 

47 

47 

52 

52 

49 

73 

135 

49 

47 

33 

87 

23 

790 

56 

48 

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

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Timetable 

France did not report any information in the reporting sheets about the timetable 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).  

France  reported this information  for all measures. The level  of responsibility for  all measures is 
the  ‘RBD/UoM  authority’:  based  on  the  indications  in  the  FRMPs  assessed,  the  responsible 

authority for all measures is, therefore, the Prefect Coordinator of the respective river basin. The 
responsible Prefect Coordinator of the Basin (PCB) for the measures in each UoM is presented in 
the following table. 

49 

 
 
 
 
Table A7 - Responsibility by UoM 

-
r
u
o
d
A

f
o
B
C
P

e
n
n
o
r
a
G

-
s
i
o
t
r
A

f
o
B
C
P

e
i
d
r
a
c
i
P

e
s
r
o
C

f
o
B
C
P

e
p
u
o
l
e
d
a
u
G

f
o
B
C
P

e
n
a
y
u
G

f
o
B
C
P

-
e
r
i
o
L

f
o
B
C
P

e
n
g
a
t
e
r
B

e
u
q
i
n
i
t
r
a
M

f
o
B
C
P

e
t
t
o
y
a
M

f
o
B
C
P

n
o
i
n
u
é
R

f
o
B
C
P

49 

47 

52 

49 

FRA 

FRB1 

FRB2 

FRC 

FRD 

FRE 

FRF 

FRG 

FRH 

FRI 

FRJ 

FRK 

FRL 

FRM 

73 

47 

49 

33 

87 

23 

e
s
u
e
M
-
n
i
h
R

f
o
B
C
P

47 

47 

-
e
n
ô
h
R

f
o
B
C
P

e
é
n
a
r
r
e
t
i
d
é
M

-
e
n
i
e
S
f
o
B
C
P

e
i
d
n
a
m
r
o
N

Grand 
Total 

52 

49 

47 

47 

47 

52 

52 

49 

73 

135 

135 

49 

47 

33 

87 

23 

49 

96 

Grand 
Total 
Notes:  The  total  includes  measures  assigned  to  more  than  one  measure  type.  PCB  refers  to  the 
Prefect Coordinator of the Basin (i.e. le préfet coordonnateur de bassin). 

135 

790 

73 

87 

52 

52 

49 

33 

47 

23 

94 

Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

responses are analysed below; 

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

question for which not all MS reported and whose answers are not analysed here. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
France reported information about the progress of implementation of the measures. The progress 
of implementation was reported as71:  

 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 A8 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Completed 

Ongoing 
construction 

Progress ongoing  Not started 

Grand Total 

No action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
review 
Other 

1 

1 

77 

54 

33 

18 

20 

145 

70 

78 

17 

31 

3 

90 

31 

69 

16 

36 

Grand Total 

202 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

245 

341 

2 

3 

313 

155 

181 

51 

87 

790 

Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A8: Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

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

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

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Table A9 – Progress of implementation by UoM 

Completed 

Ongoing 
construction 

Progress 
ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

FRA 

FRB1 

FRB2 

FRC 

FRD 

FRE 

FRF 

FRG 

FRH 

FRI 

FRJ 

FRK 

FRL 

FRM 

Grand Total 

1 

1 

2 

26 

26 

29 

25 

78 

7 

11 

202 

16 

47 

14 

47 

52 

14 

23 

57 

47 

16 

8 

341 

7 

7 

8 

1 

73 

49 

33 

63 

4 

245 

14 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Average per 
UoM 

24 

18 

0 

49 

47 

47 

47 

52 

52 

49 

73 

135 

49 

47 

33 

87 

23 

790 

56 

52 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A9: Progress of implementation by UoM 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

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

Document on the Floods Directive. 

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

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

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

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

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

but are not finalized. 

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

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

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

provided any advisory session yet. 

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

 On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
 Completed (COM) means an advisory service that has been implemented and has been 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
instructions, etc.): 

involving  administrative  acts  (e.g. 

licenses,  permits,  regulations, 

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

been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

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

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

Measure details: other 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

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

 Any other information reported (optional field). 

France did not report ‘any other information’ for any of the measures. However, although France 
did not report any Community Acts associated for the majority of the measures (676), it reported 
common provisions with the WFD (2000/60/EC) for the remaining 114 measures. For 27 of these 
measures, France reported common provisions with the RBMPs72. 

72  Specifically, under the Schéma directeur d'aménagement et de gestion des eaux (SDAGE). 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A10 – Other Community Acts by measure aspect 

Common provisions with SDAGE under 
WFD 

Common provisions with WFD 

No action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Other 

14 

11 

2 

7 

67 

1 

2 

10 

Grand Total 

87 
27 
Notes: The table includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 
The table includes only the 114 measures for which information about Other Community Acts 
associated is reported. 

Table A11 - Other Community Acts by UoM 

Common provisions with SDAGE under 
WFD 

Common provisions with WFD 

FRA 

FRB1 

FRB2 

FRC 

FRD 

FRE 

FRF 

FRG 

FRH 

FRI 

FRJ 

FRK 

FRL 

FRM 

Grand Total 

27 

27 

7 

7 

5 

7 

8 

13 

9 

21 

6 

4 

87 

Average per UoM 

6 
2 
Notes: The table includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 
The table includes only the 114 measures for which information about Other Community Acts 
associated is reported. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures73 

No Action 

M11 

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

M21 

M22 

M23 

M24 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

Prevention 

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

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

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

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

Protection 

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

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

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

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

M35 

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

Preparedness 

M41 

M42 

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 

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

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

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
M43  Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public awareness 

or preparedness for flood events 

M44 

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

Recovery & Review 

M51 

M52 

M53 

M61 

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

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

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

Other 

Other 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)  

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

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

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 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

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 

A07 Low till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

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 

A08 Green cover 

F08 Appropriate design of 
roads and stream crossings 

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation 

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches 

A09 Early sowing 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

N09 Removal of dams and 
other longitudinal barriers 

U09 Rain Gardens 

A10 Traditional terracing 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

F11 Urban forest parks 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

A13 Mulching 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

N12 Lake restoration 

U12 Infiltration basins 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

N13 Restoration of natural 
infiltration to groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas in 
peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

58