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

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ 1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. 

 Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment ......................... 16 

1.1  Reporting of the FRMPs ............................................................................................ 16 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs ......................................................................................... 16 

2. 

 Integration of previously reported information ................................................................ 17 

2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment................................ 17 

2.2 

Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs .................... 18 

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas ................................................... 19 

2.4  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk 
maps   .................................................................................................................................... 20 

2.5  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration 
of previously reported information ....................................................................................... 22 

3. 

 Setting of Objectives ........................................................................................................ 23 

3.1 

3.2 

Focus of objectives ..................................................................................................... 23 

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................ 23 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ........................................... 24 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding ............................. 24 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives ............................................................................... 25 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ....... 25 

4. 

 Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ....................................................... 27 

4.1  Cost of measures ........................................................................................................ 27 

4.2 

Funding of measures .................................................................................................. 28 

1 

 
 
 
4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures ............................................ 29 

4.4  Measures and objectives............................................................................................. 30 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures .................................................................... 30 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ........................................................................................... 31 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ........................................... 32 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures ................................................................... 32 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ........................................................... 33 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ....................................................................................... 33 

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

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ...................................................... 36 

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

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures ............. 40 

5. 

 Consideration of climate change ...................................................................................... 42 

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change ............................. 42 

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

6. Cost-benefit analysis ............................................................................................................. 44 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ..................................................... 44 

7. 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation . 
 ........................................................................................................................................... 45 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................ 45 

7.2 

Public information and consultation .......................................................................... 45 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders .......................................................................... 48 

7.4 

7.5 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................ 50 

Strategic Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 50 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................ 50 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 52 

Background & method .......................................................................................................... 52 

Types of measures used in reporting ..................................................................................... 53 

List of tables & figures .......................................................................................................... 54 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................ 55 

Measure details: cost ............................................................................................................. 58 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: name & location ......................................................................................... 59 

Measure details: objectives ................................................................................................... 60 

Measure details: authorities ................................................................................................... 61 

Measure details: progress ...................................................................................................... 61 

Measure details: other ........................................................................................................... 65 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types .................................................................................... 66 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures .................................................................. 67 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

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

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

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

This  report  assesses  the  FRMPs  for  Romania1.  It  assesses  the  FRMPs  and  Member  State 
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  Romania,  the 
assessment focused on five of the 12 plans. As all FRMPs were prepared by a working 

group  composed  of  specialists  from  Romanian  Waters,  the  11  River  Basin 
Administrations  and  the  National  Institute  for  Hydrology  and  Water  Management,  it 

was  expected  that  they  followed  a  similar  methodology.  The  selection  of  FRMPs 
sought  to  ensure  coverage  of  the  range  of  flood  sources  as  well  as  relations  with 

neighbouring Member States and third countries. The following FRMPs were assessed: 
o  Danube Unit of Management (UoM) (RO1000). This FRMP was developed for the 
national sector of the Danube; it comprises several other UoMs but not the whole 
country and borders Bulgaria and Serbia. 

o  Buzău  –  Ialomiţa  UoM  (RO5).  This  UoM  has  experienced  significant  flooding  in 

recent years. It also borders Bulgaria. 

2 

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

5 

 
 
                                                 
o  Dobrogea Litoral (RO6). This UoM is located in a coastal region, thus is subject to 

seawater floods. It borders Ukraine. 

o  Someș-Tisa (RO9). This UoM borders Hungary. 
o  Prut-Bârlad (RO11). This UoM borders with the Republic of Moldova; 

6 

 
 
 
 
Overview 

Figure 1 

Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

Romania has designated 12 Units of Management (UoMs) under the FD. Of these 12 UoMs, 
11  cover  individual  catchments  and  correspond  to  the  11  River  Basin  Administrations  under 
Romania’s water management system; the 12th UoM, the Danube (RO1000) is not designated 
as  a  separate  territory  but  rather  linearly  covers  the  banks  of  the  Danube  along  seven  other 

UoMs. In contrast, under the Water Framework Directive (WFD), Romania designated a single 
River  Basin  District  (RBD),  the  Danube  (also  designated  as  RO1000):  consequently,  the 

Danube  RBD  covers  the  whole  country  and  thus  does  not  correspond  to  the  territory  of  the 
Danube UoM, which only covers the Danube River’s banks.  

7 

 
 
Romania  prepared  and  adopted  12  FRMPs,  one  for  each  UoM,  including  the  overarching 
Danube  UoM  (RO1000)3:  this  FRMP  will  be  implemented  by  the  National  Administration 
“Romanian Waters” (ANAR in Romanian) together with seven UoMs whose territories include 
the  Danube  River  banks:  Banat  (01),  Jiu  (RO2),  Olt  (RO3),  Arges-Vedea  (RO4),  Buzău  –

Ialomiţa (RO5), Prut – Bârlad (RO11), Dobrogea – Litoral (RO6). 

All  FRMPs  were  coordinated  at  national  level,  with  input  from  the  individual  River  Basin 

Administrations, and consequently share the same approach and style. Romania’s FRMPs were 
adopted by Government Decision no. 972 on 21 December 20164. 

The  table  below  gives  an  overview  of  all  UoMs  in  Romania,  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) WISE5 – the FRMP as a 
PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML.   

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Romania 

UoM 

RO1 

RO2 

RO3 

RO4 

RO5 

RO6 

RO7 

RO8 

RO9 

RO10 

RO11 

RO1000 

TOTAL 

Name 

Banat 

Jiu 

Olt 

Arges-Vedea 

Buzău–Ialomiţa 

Dobrogea-Litoral 

Mures 

Cris 

Somes-Tisa 

Siret 

Prut-Bârlad 

Danube 

Number of APSFRs 

XML reported 

PDF Reported 

46 

16 

39 

34 

16 

10 

51 

37 

37 

54 

35 

24 

399 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web page: 

  http://www.rowater.ro/PMRI/Planul%20de%20Management%20al%20riscului%20la%2

0Inundatii.aspx?PageView=Shared   

3  Under  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  Romania  prepared  11  RBMP  sub-plans  at  the  level  of  the  11  River 

Basin Administrations and one RBMP at national level that is a synthesis of the 11 sub-plans.  

4  See: 

http://www.rowater.ro/PMRI/Planul%20de%20Management%20al%20riscului%20la%20Inundatii.aspx?Page
View=Shared  

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

o=2&d-4014547-s=3  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
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 

...to non-structural initiatives   No evidence  

Romania has established nine common 
objectives at national level: these common 
objectives are presented in all five FRMPs 
assessed. The nine objectives cover four areas: 
economic, social, environmental and cultural 
heritage.   

This is part of the common objectives found in 
all five FRMPs assessed. The objectives relate 
to avoiding and reducing adverse consequences 
to human health and safety, to economic 
development, the environmental and cultural 
heritage. 

Romania’s objectives (operational objectives) 
call for the minimisation of flood risks and 
thus by definition at least cover both the 
reduction of potential adverse consequences as 
well as the reduction of the likelihood of 
flooding. 

None of the objectives refer specifically to 
non-structural initiatives (but measures do).  

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

9 

 
 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...human health  

Strong evidence  

...economic activity  

Strong evidence  

...environment  

Strong evidence  

...cultural heritage  

Strong evidence  

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence  

...prioritised  

Strong evidence  

One of the objectives is "Minimising the flood 
risk on life", the indicator being the number of 
inhabitants exposed to flood risk. 

Romania has three objectives in this area, one 
for economic activities, another on 
transportation infrastructure and the third for 
agricultural land. 

Romania has three relevant objectives. These 
refer to: protected areas where water is 
abstracted for human consumption; potentially 
polluting sites (including industrial facilities) 
and supporting the WFD’s objectives.  

Romania has an objective on minimising the 
flood risk on the cultural patrimony. 

Romania has reported a total of 3 138 
measures, covering all four aspects of flood 
risk management – prevention, protection, 
preparedness and recovery and review. The 
great majority of measures reported, 2 717 (87 
% of the total) are for protection. 

Measures have been prioritised for each UoM 
in terms of their benefits to the nine flood risk 
management objectives and the costs. Several 
categories of measures, including at national 
level and some river basin level measures, 
were not prioritised. 

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

...costs & benefits  

Some evidence  

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

As noted above, the prioritisation of measures 
incorporated cost and benefit elements. 
However, the five FRMPs assessed do not 
report details of the results. 

In the FRMPs, the flood extent is presented for 
each APSFR. According to the reported 
information, the information on the flood 
extent has been used to define the measures. 

10 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...flood conveyance  

No evidence  

...water retention  

Strong evidence  

...environmental objectives 
of the WFD  

Strong evidence  

...spatial planning/land use   Strong evidence  

...nature conservation  

Some evidence  

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

Some evidence  

No information was found in the five FRMPs 
assessed regarding consideration of flood 
conveyance.  

Natural water retention measures (NWRM) are 
included in all FRMPs assessed. The measures 
include improving forest management in flood 
risk areas, as well as measures to restore 
retention areas (flood plains, wetland, etc). 
Indicators are identified for each NWRM 
measure presented. 

All five FRMPs assessed describe in a separate 
section the effects that planned measures have 
on the environmental objectives of the WFD. 
Moreover, supporting the WFD’s objectives is 
one of the environmental objectives of the 
FRMPs. 

The five FRMPs assessed all identify a series 
of national and river basin measures to address 
spatial planning and land use, among which the 
introduction of FHRMs in the Town Planning 
and Local Development Plans, the coordinated 
update of the County Land Use plans and 
creation of Area Land Use Plans for flood 
prone areas, correlated with the National Land 
Use Plan, based on FHRMs and the provisions 
of the FRMPs, and legal and technical 
regulations for all categories of (new) 
constructions that are built in flood risk areas. 

While several measures, notably the NWRM, 
may have positive impacts on nature 
conservation, the five FRMPs assessed do not 
refer directly to this topic. 

The only reference to navigation found is 
related to the project under preparation 
"Danube sediment" (proposed by FRMP 
Danube RO1000, Danube being the sole 
navigable waterway), which will tackle issues 
related to navigation, among other things. 

11 

 
 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Some evidence  

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Strong evidence  

Coordination ensured with 
WFD  

Strong evidence  

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Some evidence  

The five FRMPs include measures to study and 
address expected effects of climate change on 
the likelihood and potential adverse 
consequences of flooding.  

Coordination was ensured with other countries, 
through the ICPDR, as well as bilateral 
cooperation with neighbouring countries, 
especially Hungary and Bulgaria. 

The same authorities (Romanian Waters) were 
responsible for the preparation of both FRMPs 
and RBMPs, and the consultation processes of 
these plans occurred at the same time. As noted 
above, FRMP measures were assessed in terms 
of their impacts on WFD objectives, and one of 
the FRMP objectives refer to the WFD’s 
objectives.  

A process for active involvement of 
stakeholders was carried out, although it 
mainly involved public authorities.  

Good Practices 

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

Table 3 

Good practices in the Romanian FRMPs 

Topic area 

Good practices identified 

Integration of previously 
reported information in 
the FRMPs. 

The FRMP for the Someș-Tisa UoM (RO9) analyses the effects of 
climate change on the hydrological regime of the region (other FRMPs 
assessed, however, do not provide information on this). 

Setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk.  

The common FRMP objectives incorporate the WFD’s objectives and 
refer to installations under other key EU legislation, including the 
Seveso Directive. 

All objectives contain at least some specific and measurable elements: 
all five FRMPs assessed define indicators for the objectives. 

The process for setting objectives was coordinated at national and 
regional levels and with stakeholders. 

Planning/implementing of 
measures and their 
prioritization for the 

In the five FRMPs assessed, all measures at the APSFR level are 
specific and measurable, while some of the river basin level measures 
are specific as well – for many measures, specific locations are 

12 

 
 
 
Topic area 
achievement of objectives. 

indicated. 

Good practices identified 

All the FRMPs assessed establish a process for monitoring the progress 
of their measures and identify indicators for this process, including 
quantitative baselines and targets.  

The FRMPs assessed include measures that address spatial planning 
and natural water retention.  

Special attention was given to non-structural measures. Out of 23 types 
of measures, 22 are non-structural or light structural (only one 
structural measure involving hard engineering works).  

Romania’s FRMPs and RBMPs were prepared in close coordination, 
including in the assessment of measures the achievement of WFD 
objectives. 

All the FRMPs assessed include measures to address climate change, 
including studies for future action. 

The FRMPs assessed indicate that a prioritisation methodology based 
on multi-criteria analysis with cost-benefit elements was used. 

For all FRMPs assessed and also at national level, Romania used a 
range of communication tools and consultation mechanisms to inform 
and engage stakeholders and the public through the different phases of 
the planning process, including a documentary film, surveys and direct 
contacts with local authorities. 

Stakeholders were engaged via workshops and technical meetings in 
all five RBMPs assessed and via the River Basin Committees. 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Use of cost-benefit 
analysis in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Public consultation  

International issues in 
flood risk management.  

Romania has cooperated with neighbouring Member States on issues 
related to flood management via the ICPDR and bilateral activities. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
Areas for further development 

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

FRMPs assessed. 

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Romanian FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Integration of previously 
reported information in 
the FRMPs. 

Setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk.  

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

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 

Romania’s FRMPs do not distinguish among flood sources6. 
Internet links to online maps were not included in the five FRMPs 
assessed, with the exception of the FRMP developed for UoM 
RO1000, whose link was not functional at the time of the assessment.    

The FRMP for the Danube (RO1000) reports one more APSFR than 
indicated in the PFRA. The FRMP does not include an explanation for 
this difference7. 
The minimum targets set by the FRMPs for the objectives linked to 
indicators seem to be low in ambition. Consequently, targets such as 
achieving zero damages from floods may be difficult to achieve8. 
The objectives are general and do not identify clear locations where 
they will be achieved and there is no information by when (while the 
plans have as time horizon a target of 6 years, and up to 12 years for 
major projects and large areas, it is not indicated if the objectives will 
be achieved in this time frame). 

The five FRMPs assessed do not indicate clearly how the objectives 
are linked to measures, although the FRMPs state that measures have 
been prioritised based on the set objectives9. 
The five FRMPs assessed lack a description of how much the measures 
contribute to the achievement of objectives and do not contain a 
description of whether the objectives will be met when all measures are 
implemented.  

There is no budget provided for the implementation of measures; 
although there are indications of funding sources, details are not 
provided10. 
The FRMPs assessed do not provide an overview of potential climate 
impacts (with the exception of FRMP for Somes-Tisa, RO9), nor refer 

6  Romania subsequently noted that this is a legacy of how FHRMs were prepared in Romania. 
7  Romania clarified subsequently that the Danube UoM (RO 1000) indeed contains 24 APSFRs. There was an 
oversight during PFRA reporting; this will be corrected in the second cycle of implementation of the FD. 
8  Romania  explained  subsequently  that  minimum  and  aspirational  targets  define  the  envelope  of  possible 
outcomes. The minimum targets are set so that there is a benchmark in case factors outside of the control of 
the flood management authorities reduce the ability to deliver. 

9  Romania subsequently explained that the objectives are designed to be general on purpose so that they can be 
applied to any location. This, according to Romania, means, that projects in different locations and timescales 
can be compared on an equal basis (a level playing field). 
10  Romania recalled subsequently that this was optional reporting. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

assessed.  

to Romania’s National Climate Change Strategy. 

Use of cost-benefit 
analysis in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Public consultation  

Details on the results of the analysis of costs and benefits were not 
found in the FRMPs assessed.  

The FRMPs do not include a description of how the consultation 
results were considered in the final drafting of the plan and the effects 
of the consultation are not summarised in the FRMPs11.  
It appears that the stakeholders that were actively involved were 
mainly from the public sector, as opposed to stakeholders from Non-
Governmental Organisations (NGOs), the private sector and citizens.  

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): 

  To  be  able  to  assess  progress,  the  FRMPs  should  establish  a  stronger  link  between  the 
objectives  and measures and indicate  whether planned measures,  when completed, will 

be  sufficient  to  achieve  objectives.  The  levels  of  ambition  for  objectives  and  measures 
should be coordinated. 

  The  FRMPs  should  provide  estimated  costs  and  specify  the  sources  of  funding  for  the 

measures.  

  The  FRMPs  should  provide  further  detail  on  the  methodology  for  prioritisation  and  its 
application and present its results. A cost benefit analysis to this end should be employed 
whenever possible and reflected in the FRMPs. 

  Climate  change  should  be  considered  in  greater  depth  in  the  second  cycle,  including 

coordination with the National Climate Change Strategy.  

 

It will be important to ensure that FRMPs, APSFRs, and FHRMs refer to each other as 
appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public in an 

accessible format, including digitally.   

  An  as  broad  as  possible  set  of  interested  parties  should  be  actively  involved  in  the 
preparation of the FRMPs and the FRMPs should indicate how the results of the public 
consultation were considered in the finalisation of the Plans. 

11  Romania subsequently informed that in the process of FRMPs’ approval by Government Decision, comments 
were  received  and  were  integrated  in  the  Plans  and  were  also  reportedly  shared  with  the  European 
Commission in February 2017. 

15 

 
 
                                                 
 Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the 

1. 
assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Romania  has  reported  12  FRMPs,  one  for  each  unit  of  management  (UoM).  Romania  has 
designated  12  Units  of  Management  (UoMs)  under  the  FD.  Of  these  12  UoMs,  11  cover 

individual catchments and correspond to the 11 River Basin Administrations under Romania’s 
water management system; the 12th UoM, the Danube (RO1000) is not designated as a separate 
territory but rather covers the banks of the Danube along seven other UoMs: Banat (RO1), Jiu 
(RO2),  Olt  (RO3),  Arges-Vedea  (RO4),  Buzău  –Ialomiţa  (RO5),  Prut  –  Bârlad  (RO11), 

Dobrogea – Litoral (RO6). 

Romania did not make use of Article 13.3 of the FD, which allowed Member States to make 

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

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

In Romania, the FRMPs were coordinated at national level and thus were expected to follow a 
common  methodology.  The  selection  of  FRMPs  sought  to  ensure  coverage  of  the  range  of 

flood sources as well as relations with neighbouring Member States and third countries. 

The following FRMPs for the following UoMs were assessed: 

Table 5 

UoMs in Romanian FRMPs 

UoM code 

RO5 

RO6 

RO9 

RO11 

RO1000 

UoM Name 

Buzău–Ialomiţa 

Dobrogea-Litoral 

Somes-Tisa 

Prut-Bârlad 

Danube 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

The  conclusions  of  the  PRFA  are  presented  in  the  FRMP  for  all  five  FRMPs  assessed.  This 

includes  a  summary  map  showing  areas  of  potential  significant  flood  risk  (APSFRs).  All 
FRMPs assessed also had a textual description which includes tables listing the APSFRs, the 
methodology  employed  and  the  results  of  previous  steps12.  Overview  maps  are  reproduced 
within the plans13.  

Detailed  maps  are  also  provided  as  PDF  annexes  to  the  plans  (except  for  the  FRMP  of  the 
Danube, which has no annexes)14. In addition, an online map viewer shows the APSFRs (and 
FHRMs)  for  all  UoMs:  http://gis2.rowater.ro:8989/flood/.  The  FRMPs  assessed  do  not, 
however, provide links to this map viewer. 

No information on conveyance routes is included in the five FRMPs assessed15.  

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

There are no indications in the FRMP RO1000 (Danube) – which covers the Danube banks – 

that the identification of flood risk areas was coordinated with  neighbouring Member States, 
but there was a process of information exchange. The FRMP explains that a national approach 

was used and transboundary coordination is not included as a part of this plan, as in 2015 the 
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) developed a basin 
level FRMP that deals with transboundary issues16.  

The reporting sheets for the Danube UoM (RO1000) and the Someș-Tisa UoM (RO9) state that 

Romania is in a continuous process of informing and working with the neighbouring Member 
States  on  issues  related  to  flood  management.  This  includes  Romania’s  contributions  to  the 

ICPDR and ongoing bilateral dialogues with Bulgaria (for the Danube UoM) and with Hungary 
for UoM RO9 (Someș-Tisa)17. 

12  See Sections 2.5 of FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 
13  See Figure no 5 in FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 
14  The plans are provided on the same page as the FRMPs: 

http://www.rowater.ro/PMRI/Planul%20de%20Management%20al%20riscului%20la%20Inundatii.aspx?Page
View=Shared . 

15  FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 
16  ICDPR,  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan  for  the  Danube  River  Basin  District,  December  2015.  Available  at: 

http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/flood-risk-management  

17  FRMP  RO1000;  Summary  Sheets  for  RO1000  Danube  and  RO9  Someș-Tisa,  sections  Summary  of 

Coordination: FRMP for the Danube river basin developed by ICPDR, available here: 
http://www.rowater.ro/Documente%20Externe/1stdfrmp-final_0.pdf  

17 

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

According  to  FRMPs,  the  FHR  maps  were  developed  based  on  the  PFRA  and  generally 
confirmed the findings of the PFRA. In the case of the UoM (RO1000), there is a discrepancy 
between the PFRA reports finalised in December 201118, which list 23 APSFRs and the FRMP 
and the FHRMs which list 24 APSFRs19. This discrepancy is not explained20. 

The Danube FRMP also states that modelling under the Danube FloodRisk Project21 covered 
the river’s floodplains from  its source to  the Black Sea, and all 23 APSFRs in  Romania that 

represent  parts  of  the  Danube  floodplain  were  united  into  one  area  along  the  Danube  with  a 
total length of 1 074.1 km. 

2.2 

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

The  five  FRMPs  assessed  all  include  a  description  of  the  FHRMs,  and  overview  maps  are 

provided  within  the  main  text  of  the  plans  and  are  also  published  as  separate  documents 
(except  for  the  Danube  FRMP,  RO1000,  where  the  FHRMs  are  not  published  in  separate 
documents)22. 

In  none  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  do  the  FHRMs  distinguish  between  fluvial  floods,  seawater 

floods,  pluvial  floods,  groundwater  floods,  floods  from  artificial  water  bearing  structures  or 
floods from no specific sources or more than one source of flooding. 

There are no links  to  the maps (with the exception of the FRMP RO1000, which indicates a 
link that does not function). The FHRMs are nonetheless available online: as PDFs23; and on a 
common, online map service hosted by Romanian Waters: http://gis2.rowater.ro:8989/flood/. 

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

The FRMPs do not indicate that FHRMs have been prepared for flood risk areas shared with 

other  Member  States.  Nevertheless,  the  FRMP  RO1000  mentions  that  the  flood  hazard  and 
flood  risk  maps  have  been  developed  as  part  of  the  international  Danube  Floodrisk  project, 

which prepared FHRMs for the Danube River’s floodplains.  

18  See: http://www.rowater.ro/EPRI%20Rapoarte/PFRA%20Dunare_2.pdf, section 7 
19  Comparison of the PFRA report, p. 35 and the Danube FRMP, pp. 57-58. 
20  Romania clarified subsequently that the Danube UoM (RO 1000) indeed contains 24 APSFRs. There was an 
oversight during PFRA reporting; this will be corrected in the second cycle of implementation of the FD. 

21  See: http://www.danube-floodrisk.eu/  
22  Section 2.6 and Figures no 6 and 7 in the Figures section of FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP 

RO11 and FRMP R06. 

23  The PDFs are available on the same page as the FRMPs: 

http://www.rowater.ro/PMRI/Planul%20de%20Management%20al%20riscului%20la%20Inundatii.aspx?Page
View=Shared  

18 

 
 
                                                 
 
As noted above, Romania’s reporting sheets  for the Danube UoM (RO1000) and the Someș-
Tisa  UoM  (RO9)  state  that  Romania  has  informed  and  worked  with  neighbouring  Member 

States, Bulgaria and Hungary, on flood management issues.  

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

All the FRMPs assessed state that the FHRMs have been used to develop the FRMPs24. Based 
on the reporting sheets and the FRMPs assessed: 

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

activities, assets)  

  FHRMs are used as a tool in the public consultation process  

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

  Nonetheless,  limited  detail  has  been  provided  on  how  the  FHRMs  have  been  used  to 
develop FRMPs. The reporting sheets state that for each APSFR, the FHRMs provided 

support for the analysis and definition of measures. The FRMPs mention that a statistical 
analysis  based  on  FHRMs  was  developed  both  at  national  level  (including  the  river 

Danube), as well as the level of each UoM: indicators were prepared at the level of each 
UoM for the four categories of consequences established in accordance to the provisions 

of  the  FD  under  the  medium  probability  scenario.  The  information  was  used  in  the 
establishment of FRMPs’ objectives.   

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.  

The FRMPs indicate that new flood risk areas have been identified in some UoMs, categorised 
on the basis of flooding in recent years25:     

  The  FRMP  for  the  Buzău  –  Ialomiţa  UoM  (RO5)  indicates  that  10  new  areas  were 

identified; 

  The FRMP for Dobrogea Litoral (RO6) indicates nine new areas;  

  The FRMP for Prut-Bârlad (RO11) indicates nine new areas; 

All  FRMPs  examined  mentioned  that  the  two  scenarios  for  high  risk  and  low  risk  that  were 

missing  have  been  developed  in  addition  to  the  one  which  was  initially  developed,  i.e.  for 

24  Section 2.7, chapter 3 and chapter 6 of FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP 

R06; reporting sheets.  

25  Romania subsequently indicated that these are based on recent flood events (2010-16) and in the second cycle 

of the PFRA, the APSFRs will be updated and reported.  

19 

 
 
                                                 
medium  risk.  Also,  the  FRMP  for  the  Buzău  –  Ialomiţa  UoM  (RO5)  mentions  that  more 
detailed FHRMs will be developed for three APSFRs which have already been reported to the 

European Commission. 

In the case of the Danube UoM (RO1000), as noted above, there is a discrepancy between the 

PFRA which lists 23 APSFRs and the FRMP and the FHR maps, which list 24 APSFRs. This 
discrepancy is not explained. For the same UoM, modelling has been made under the Danube 

FloodRisk Project, in a unitary way from the source to the Black Sea, and all 23 APSFRs in 
Romania that represent parts of the Danube floodplain were embedded into one area along the 

Danube. 

The  reporting  sheets  mention  that  the  FHRMs  have  been  corrected  and  improved  since  last 

submitted to the European Commission in 2014. 

2.4 

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

The  prior  FHRM  assessment26  identified  the  following  areas  for  further  development  for 
Romania: 

  According to Art 6(1) Member States shall prepare FHRMs for the areas identified under 
Art  5(1)  (APSFRs,  Areas  of  Potential  Significant  Flood  Risks).  Some  UoMs  (e.g. 

RO1000)  reported  differences  in  the  number  of  APSFRs  identified  in  the  PFRA  and 
those reported in 2014 with the FHRMs. 

  Scenarios,  Art  6(3):  Only  one  probability  scenario  had  been  developed  for  each  of  the 

maps checked27.    

  According  to  Article  5(c)  Member  States  should  include  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. Romania did not include 
information on WFD protected areas in their maps.   

  Flood sources were not individually represented on the maps, meaning it was not easy to 
understand  whether  pluvial,  sea  water,  groundwater,  flooding  from  artificial  water 

bearing infrastructure or other type of floods had been mapped, although APSFRs related 
to  groundwater  floods  and  flooding  from  artificial  water  bearing  infrastructure  were 

reported to be associated with these flood sources in 2012. 

26   European  Commission,  Assessment  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps  –  Member  State  Report:  RO  – 

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

27  Romanian Authorities subsequently clarified that maps for only the medium scenario were initially published; 
maps for all three probability scenarios were developed and the previously lacking were published later.  

20 

 
 
                                                 
 
  Links to national FHRMs were not available for all UoMs. 

  Climate change had not been included in the analysis. 

Some,  but  not  all  of  these  areas  for  further  development,  are  explicitly  addressed  within  the 
FRMPs assessed or in the reporting sheets:28 

  APSFRs mapped: RO1000 still reported differences in the number of APSFRs identified 
in  the  PFRA  (23)  and  those  reported  in  2014  with  the  FHRM  and  FRMP  (24).  The 
FRMP does not provide an explanation for this difference; 

  Scenarios Art. 6(3): all FRMPs examined mention that the two omitted scenarios (high 
risk  and  low  risk)  have  been  developed  in  addition  to  the  one  which  was  initially 
developed (medium risk); 

  WFD  areas,  Art  6(5)(c):  information  on  this  topic  has  been  included  in  all  FRMPs 
assessed.  In  the  FHRMs,  there  is  no  information  on  the  protected  areas,  but  WFD 

protected areas were used in the elaboration of flood risk maps and are presented in the 
online portal in associated risks (see the figure below). 

  Flood sources: Flood sources are still not individually represented on the maps; 

  Link to national maps: although working links were not provided in the FRMPs assessed, 

the FHRMs are available online at http://gis2.rowater.ro:8989/flood/;  

  Climate Change: the FRMPs do indicate that an analysis related to climate change was 

integrated into the FHRMs. 

28  FRMP  RO1000;  FRMP  R09;  FRMP  RO5;  FRMP  RO11  and  FRMP  R06.  This  refers  specifically  to  any 

updates in the time period between publication of the FHRMs and the publication of the FRMPs.  

21 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 2 

Example of protected areas shown in the FHRMs 

2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following good practice was identified:  

  The FRMP for the Someș-Tisa UoM (RO9) analyses the effects of climate change on the 
hydrological regime of the region (other FRMPs assessed, however, do not provide this 

information). 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  Romania’s FHRMs and FRMPs do not distinguish between flood sources. 

  Internet  links  to  online  maps  were  not  included  in  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  with  the 
exception of the FRMP developed for UoM RO1000, whose link was not functional  at 

the time of the assessment. 

  The  FRMP  for  the  Danube  (RO1000)  reports  one  more  APSFR  than  indicated  in  the 

PFRA. The FRMP does not include an explanation for this difference29. 

29  Romania clarified subsequently that the Danube UoM (RO 1000) indeed contains 24 APSFRs. There was an 
oversight during PFRA reporting; this will be corrected in the second cycle of implementation of the FD. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.   Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

Romania  set  its  FRMP  objectives  at  national  level:  these  are  the  same  for  all  UoMs.  The 

objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of flood risk. In all FRMPs assessed, there 
are no objectives that refer to non-structural measures, and there are no objectives that refer to 

specific  measures  to  be  implemented.  Nine  objectives  cover  four  areas:  economic,  social, 
environmental and cultural heritage: 

  Economic activity:  

o  minimising the flood risk on the transportation infrastructure;  
o  minimising the flood risk on economic activities; 
o  minimising the flood risk on agricultural lands; 

  Human health: 

o  minimising the flood risk on life;  
o  minimising the flood risk on the community; 

  Cultural heritage: minimising the flood risk on the cultural patrimony; 

  Environment:  

o  minimising  the  flood  risk  on  protected  areas  where  water  is  abstracted  for 

human consumption; 

o  Support to achieve and conserve good ecological status (GES)/good ecological 

potential (GEP) according to WFD requirements 

o  minimising the flood risk on potentially polluting sites. 

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

In Romania, all objectives are identical for each FRMP assessed. They are not specific but do 
contain measurable elements.  

FRMPs  have  set  quantitative  indicators  to  measure  achievement  of  objectives.  Examples 
include:  number  of  inhabitants  exposed  to  floods,  transport  infrastructure  exposed  to  floods, 

agricultural land exposed to floods; number of museums, churches and monuments exposed to 
flood risk; number of areas under the IPPC  – IED, Wastewater and Seveso II Directives that 

are  subject  to  flood  risks.  The  indicators  are  the  same  for  all  FRMPs  assessed.  There  is  a 
minimum and an aspirational target defined for each of the nine objectives. In most cases, the 
minimum  target  corresponds  to  maintaining  the  defined  indicators  at  the  present  level  of 
performance,  while  the  aspirational  target  represents  the  ideal  situation  (e.g.  zero  roads, 
inhabitants, lands exposed to flooding).  

23 

 
 
 
There  are  no  clear  locations  where  the  objectives  will  be  achieved  and  no  information  by 
when.  While  the  plan  has  as  time  horizon  target  of  6  years  (and  up  to  12  years  for  major 

projects and large areas), it is not indicated if the objectives will be achieved in this time frame. 

Although all FRMPs assessed contain chapters on measures, there is not a clear connection on 
how the set objectives will link to those measures.  

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

In  the  FRMPs  assessed,  the  objectives  specify  the  reduction  of  the  adverse  consequences  of 

floods on human health, cultural heritage, environment and economic activity.  

For all five FRMPs assessed, the objectives cover the following elements:  

  adverse consequences of floods on human health;  

  adverse consequences of floods on cultural heritage;  

  adverse consequences of floods on the environment;  

  adverse consequences on economic activity.  

The  objectives  specify  a  minimisation  of  these  consequences,  also  defining  target  levels.  As 

mentioned  before,  all  objectives  across  the  five  assessed  FRMPs  are  identical.  Examples  of 
objectives across the five FRMPs assessed include the following:  

  Economic  activity:  minimising  the  flood  risk  on  the  transportation  infrastructure,  with 
the  following  indicators:  length  and  importance  of  the  transportation  infrastructure 

(roads, railways, railway stations, ports, airports, etc.) exposed to flood risk; 

  Human  health:  minimising  the  flood  risk  on  life,  the  indicator  being  the  number  of 

inhabitants exposed to flood risk; 

  Cultural heritage: minimising the flood risk on the cultural patrimony, the indicator being 

the number of museums, churches and monuments exposed to flood risk; 

  Environment: minimising the flood risk on protected areas where water is abstracted for 
human  consumption,  the  indicator  being  the  number  of  water  abstractions  exposed  to 

flood risk. 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

The  Romanian  Flood  risk  management  objectives  (operational  objectives)  address  risks  and 

thus  at  least  by  definition  the  reduction  of  potential  adverse  consequences  as  well  as  the 
reduction of the likelihood of flooding30. 

30  The assessment adopts the generally accepted definition of risk as a product of consequence times likelihood, 

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

24 

 
 
 
                                                 
3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

Overall in Romania, the process for setting the objectives ensured that:  

  Objectives  have  been  coordinated  at  national  level  in  all  five  FRMPs  assessed,  to  the 

point that they are identical;  

  The  objectives  were  discussed  with  stakeholders  before  their  establishment  in  all  five 

FRMPs assessed. 

In all FRMPs assessed, the objectives were coordinated at national level by the working group 
set up to elaborate the FRMPs, which included specialists from the Romanian Waters, the 11 

River Basin Administrations and the National Institute for Hydrology and Water Management 
(with the role of methodological coordination). 

As part of the public consultation (see section 7), a public meeting was organised in June 2015, 
where the objectives and the catalogue of potential measures for all FRMPs were presented for 
discussion.  

In  none  of  the  assessed  FRMPs  have  the  potential  effects  of  climate  change  on  the  risk  of 

flooding been specifically taken into account when setting up the objectives. 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The  common  FRMP  objectives  incorporate  the  WFD’s  objectives  and  refer  to 

installations under other key EU legislation, including the Seveso Directive; 

  All  objectives  contain  at  least  some  specific  and  measurable  elements:  all  five  FRMPs 

assessed define indicators; 

  The  process  for  setting  objectives  was  coordinated  at  national  and  regional  levels  with 

stakeholders being involved in the setting of objectives. 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  The  minimum  targets  set  by  the  FRMPs  seem  to  be  low  in  ambition31.  Consequently, 

targets such as zero damages created by floods may be difficult to achieve. 

  The  objectives  are  general  and  do  not  identify  clear  locations  where  they  will  be 
achieved  and  there  is  no  information  by  when  (while  the  plans  have  as  time  horizon 

31  Romania  subsequently  explained  this  was  a  deliberate  choice  in  order  to  account  for  potentially  unforeseen 

hindrances. 

25 

 
 
                                                 
target of 6 years, and up to 12 years for major projects and large areas, it is not indicated 
if the objectives will be achieved in this time frame). 

  The  five  FRMPs  assessed  do  not  indicate  a  clear  link  between  the  objectives  and  the 

measures. 

26 

 
 
 
 
4.   Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Across  all  12  UoMs,  Romania  reported  a  total  of  3  138  measures.  2  347  measures  are 
individual, while 791 measures are aggregated32 33. The average number of measures per UoM 
is  261,  with  a  range  between  82  and  441  measures  per  UoM.  Neither  the  FRMPs  nor  the 

reporting sheets assessed provide any definitions of individual and aggregated measures - and 
indeed do not refer to these terms. 

Romania  has  reported  measures  for  all  four  aspects  of  flood  risk  management34:  across  all 
twelve UoMs, the great majority of measures are for protection: 2 717 measures, 87 % of the 

total of 3 138. These are followed by preparedness measures (247 measures, 8 %), prevention 
(126 measures, 4 %), and recovery and review (48 measures, 1 %). Please see Tables A1 to A4 

and Figures A1 and A2 in Annex A for further details. 

The  FRMPs  present  the  measures  in  terms  of  measure  aspects  and  types.  In  addition,  the 
FRMPs present measures in terms of geographic level35:  

  Measures at national level (86 measures for the five FRMPs assessed);  

  Measures at river basin level (188 measures for the five FRMPs assessed);  

  Measures at the APSFR level, this being the majority of measures (720 measures for the 

five FRMPs assessed).  

Additionally,  three  FRMPs  (Buzău  –  Ialomiţa,  RO5;  Dobrogea  Litoral,  RO6;  Prut  -  Bârlad, 
RO11) list measures for newly identified flood risk areas (see section 3) which have not been 

declared APSFR yet but have been exposed to floods in recent years (28 measures). It should 
be noted that the numbers of measures reported by Romania to WISE and described in Annex 

A below do not appear to match the numbers presented in the FRMPs.  

4.1 

Cost of measures 

None of the FRMPs assessed, nor Romania’s reporting sheets, provided an overall budget for 
the measures, nor the costs of individual measures36. 

32   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. 

33  The information reported to WISE was the starting point for the assessment in this section. The majority of the 
statistics  presented  are  based  on  processing  of  information  reported  to  WISE.  Assuming  that  the  Member 
States accurately transferred the information contained in their FRMPs to the reporting sheets (the sheets are 
the same for all Member States and are not customisable) and barring any undetected errors in the transfer of 
this information to WISE arising from the use of interfacing electronic tools, these statistics should reflect the 
content of the FRMPs. 

34  Please see Annex B for an overview of measure aspects and the measure types under each aspect. 
35  Please  note  that  these  designations  are  different  from  Romania’s  reporting  on  the  location  of  measures  (see 

below).  

27 

 
 
                                                 
4.2  Funding of measures37 

For  the  national  level  measures,  the  FRMPs  specify  that  they  should  be  financed  from  EU 

funds. The FRMPs do not specify the source of funding for UoM level  measures. Regarding 
the APSFR measures, the following funding sources have been indicated in the FRMPs:  

  Someș-Tisa FRMP (RO9): 33 APSFR measures referring to renaturation of river banks 
(vegetative protection). 38 will be funded by the funds of the River Basin Administration; 
  Buzău – Ialomiţa FRMP (RO5): out of 119 APSFR measures proposed, 83 come under 
the responsibility of the Buzau – Ialomita River Basin Authority. Of these 83 measures, 
32 measures will be funded with own funds, while applications for funding from the state 

budget or EU funds and external credits applications will be submitted for 51 measures; 

  Dobrogea  Litoral  FRMP  (RO6):  two  APSFR  measures  are  currently  funded  from  the 
state budget. Out of 27 measures proposed at APSFR level, 18 measures will be funded 
with own funds of the River Basin Administration, while applications for funding from 

the state budget or EU funds and external credits will be submitted for nine measures; 

  Prut-Bârlad FRMP (RO11): no information is provided; 

  Danube FRMP (RO1000): 77 APSFR measures are proposed  – some will be supported 
with  own  funds  of  the  authorities  (Ministry  of  Environment,  National  Administration 
Romanian  Waters,  River  Basin  Administrations  on  the  Danube,  National  Agency  for 

Land  Improvements,  National  Forestry  Authority  Romsilva,  Forest  Districts,  local 
authorities  etc.),  while  for  others  there  will  be  applications  for  funding  from  the  state 

budget or EU funds and external credits.  

Funding sources for measures in the new Flood Risk Areas have not been identified, with the 

exception of four measures under the Dobrogea Litoral FRMP (RO6): it is indicated that EU 
funds  will  be  requested  for  their  financing.  For  several  APSFRs,  the  FRMPs  indicated  that 
measures will be grouped into regional integrated projects, a mechanism for funding under EU 

structural funds: The Romanian Waters Administration will send proposals for these integrated 
projects  for  EU  funding  under  Romania’s  Large  Infrastructure  Operational  Programme 
(LIOP)39 major integrated project proposals for financing.  

36  Romania recalled subsequently that this was optional reporting. 
37  See Chapter 4 of FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 
38  M31: 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. 

39  This Operational Programme offers grants for water and wastewater projects as part of the Priority Axis 5. The 
specific  objective  5.1  “Reducing  effects  and  damages  on  the  population  caused  by  natural  phenomena 
associated to main risks emphasised by climate change, mainly floods and coastal erosion” promotes actions 

28 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
Table 6 

Funding of measures 

Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding  

Use of public budget (national level)  

Use of public budget (regional level)  

Use of public budget (local level)  

Private investment  

EU funds (generic)  

EU Structural funds  

EU Solidarity Fund  

EU Cohesion funds  

EU CAP funds  

International funds  

RO9  RO5  RO11  RO6  RO1000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

In the FRMPs assessed, the national level measures are not specific, but the FRMPs mention 
that they subsequently will need to be detailed at the level of the river basins. Some but not all 

of  the  river  basin  measures  indicated  in  the  FRMPs  are  specific.  All  APSFR  and  new  Flood 
Risk Area measures are specific, with a clear description 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. 

Overall, the number of specific and measurable measures remain high (approximately 80 % of 

the total number of measures in the FRMPs assessed). For measures with a specific location, 
the  description  usually  provides  the  specific  dimensions  (e.g.  kilometres  or  hectares)  of  the 

measure. The geographic reference is either the UoM or the APSFR. 

The following table lists the locations indicated for Romanian measures: 

that contribute to fulfilling the requirements of the Floods Directive 2007/60/EC, which are transposed in  the 
National Climate Change Strategy as well. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
Table 7 

Location of measures  

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk area  

Water body level  

More detailed than water body 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs 

With regard to when, most measures should be completed by 2021, although some should only 
be completed by 2027. All measures will be monitored against indicators40. 

4.4  Measures and objectives 

As noted in section 3, the measures are not directly linked to the objectives. Consequently, it is 
not  clear  how  measures  will  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  objectives.  It  is  also  not  clear 
whether the objectives will be achieved when all measures are completed41.  

Nonetheless, in order to support the objectives, for integrated projects, expert judgement was 
used to select potentially affected localities and the main measures with significant flood risk 
reducing effects,  based  on GIS results (mapping of the 1 % scenario)  and PPPDEI42. During 
the project implementation process, more in-depth analyses will be done (e.g. via projects to be 

financed by the Large Infrastructure Operational Programme, LIOP.) 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

Romania has reported the location of all measures. Across all 12 UoMs: 

  2 591 measures out of 3 138 are located in APSFRs (83 %) 

  342 measures are at UoM level (11 %) 

  205 measures are at national level (7 %) 

According to Romania’s reporting to WISE, for 10 of the 12 UoMs, Romania has reported 22 

measures  at  UoM  level  and  17  measures  at  national  level  in  each  UoM  (the  measures  at 
APSFR  level  vary,  however,  across  the  UoMs).  The  exceptions  are  the  Prut-Bârlad  (RO9), 

where there are 18 measures at national level; and the Danube UoM, where Romania reported 

40  See chapter 5 of the FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 
41  FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 
42  Chapter 4.6 of FRMPs 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
100 measures at UoM level, 17 measures at national level and no measures at APSFR level43. 
(See Table A6 in Annex A.)  

The  FRMPs,  however,  provide  a  different  breakdown.  The  FRMPs  assessed  define  and 
describe  three  sets  of  measures:  national-level,  river  basin  level  and  APFSR  level,  implicitly 

also  defining  the  geographic  coverage  as  mentioned  above.  The  FRMPs  state  that  for  the 
measures set at national and river basin level, the specified location is the UoM. All measures 

set at APFSR / new Flood Risk Areas level specify the exact location.  

There are inconsistencies when matching the information provided in WISE compared to that 

provided in the FRMPs. For example, the FRMP for RO1000 Danube states that there are 77 
measures  at  APFSR  level  in  its  area,  while  the  WISE  information  reports  no  measures  at 
APFSR level44.  

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

Only APFSR measures  were prioritised, each measure being  categorised as  high, medium or 
low priority. Four of the five FRMPs assessed45 provide information on the priority of APFSR 
measures  (though  not  on  measures  other  than  for  APSFRs):  each  measure  is  categorised  as 

high, medium or low priority. The vast majority of measures was categorised high priority:  

  274 out of 294 APSFR measures in Someș-Tisa FRMP (RO9); 

  79 out of 119 APSFR measures in the Buzău – Ialomiţa FRMP (RO5); 

  259 out of 264 APSFR measures in the Prut-Bârlad FRMP (RO11); 

  42 out of 43 APSFR measures in the Dobrogea Litoral FRMP (RO6). 

The FRMPs state that measures were prioritised by assessing the benefit of each measure to the 

nine  flood  risk  management  objectives.  The  prioritisation  methodology  was  based  on  multi-
criteria  analysis,  with  cost-benefit  assessment  elements  (see  section  6).  Among  the  benefit 

criteria,  support  to  achieve  and  conserve  good  ecological  status  or  potential  according  to  the 
WFD was considered (a maximum score of five is granted in case the measure does not affect 

negatively GES or GEP for the body of water or a minimal score of zero in case the measure 
deteriorates GES or GEP for the body of water). The value of the benefit / cost ratio was used 
to develop a hierarchy of priorities for proposed measures in each FRMP46. 

43  Romania  subsequently  clarified  that  for  the  Danube  UoM,  reporting  to  WISE  includes  measures  at  APSFR 
level, giving the exact location of the measure, but these are indicated at UoM level because modelling was 
carried out for one unified APSFR. 

44  This is explained in the previous footnote.  
45  The Danube FRMP (RO1000) did not present any prioritisation. 
46  See Section 4.4. of the FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 

31 

 
 
                                                 
With regard to timetable, Romania reported that all measures across the 12 UoMs will have the 
same timetable, January 2016 to December 2021. 

The  five  FRMPs  assessed,  however,  present  slightly  different  information:  the  FRMPs  state 
that  almost  all  measures  should  be  implemented  by  2021  –  but  measures  involving  major 

works that start between 2016 to 2021 will only be completed by 2027. The standard deadline 
is  2021  and  the  FRMPs  do  not  provide  further  specifications  about  which  measures  will  be 

completed by 2027. 

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

According to the five FRMPs assessed, at national level, 21 authorities are responsible for the 
implementation  of  measures.  Environmental  and  water  management  authorities  (Ministry  of 

Environment,  National  Administration  Romanian  Waters,  other  authorities  within  the 
coordination/subordination of the Ministry of Environment) have most of the responsibilities, 

but they share them with other ministries, county and local level municipalities, etc.  

At  river  basin  level,  22  authorities  are  responsible  for  the  implementation  of  measures.  The 
Ministry  of  Environment,  the  National  Administration  Romanian  Waters,  the  River  Basin 

Administrations,  but  also  the  National  Inspectorate  for  Emergency  Situations  have  many 
responsibilities. Other important  stakeholders are the Forestry Authority, the Forest  Districts, 

other ministries, county and local authorities, etc.  

At  APFSR  level,  eight  authorities  are  responsible  for  the  implementation  of  measures.  The 

National  Administration  Romanian  Waters,  the  River  Basin  Administrations,  the  Forestry 
Authority and the Forrest Districts are important stakeholders. No authorities are nominated for 

measures related to new Flood Risk Areas.  

Romania did not report on the level of responsibility of the authorities. 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

Romania reported that for all 12 UoMs, more than half of the measures were in the category of 

“progress  on-going”  (1  861  of  3  138  measures,  59  %),  and  37  %  of  measures  had  not  been 
started (1 162 of 3 138). No measures were reported as completed and few were categorised as 
“ongoing construction” (115 measures, 4 %).  

Nearly  all  prevention,  preparedness  and  recovery  and  review  measures  were  reported  as  not 
started  (though  these  three  aspects  represent  only  13  %  of  all  3  138  measures,  whereas 
protection measures represent 87 % of the total): 

  122 of 126 prevention measures (96 %) were reported as not started; 

32 

 
 
  748 of 2 717 protection measures (27 %); 

  244 of 247 preparedness measures (99 %); 

  48 of 48 recovery and review measures (100 %).  

Among the 12 UoMs, the shares of measures in the different categories varied somewhat: for 
example, for the Banat (RO1), Jiu (RO2), Buzău – Ialomiţa (RO5) and Dobrogea Litoral UoMs 

(RO6), Romania reported that the majority of their measures had not started. 

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:  Romania  has  not  reported  any  information.  Romania  does,  however, 

include an indicator for its objective to minimise flood risks on potentially polluting sites: the 
indicator  refers  to  the  IPPC  Directive/Industrial  Emissions  Directive,  the  Urban  Wastewater 

Treatment Directive and the Seveso Directive – see section 3 above. 

4.10  Specific groups of measures47 

With  regard  to  spatial  planning/land  use  measures,  Romanian  authorities  assume 

responsibility, in  the next  period, for the implementation  of some  essential  measures, among 
which: 

  The  introduction  of  FHRMs  in  the  Town  Planning  and  Local  Development  Plans 
(measure at national level contained in all FRMPs assessed, but to be developed at local 

level); 

  an update of the National Land Use Plan, a coordinated update of the County Land Use 
plans  and  creation  of  Area  Land  Use  Plans  for  flood  prone  areas,  correlated  with  the 
National Land Use Plan, based on FHRMs and the provisions of the FRMPs (measure at 

national  level  contained  in  all  FRMPs  assessed,  to  be  developed  at  national  and  local 
level);  

  The preparation or adaptation of national legislation regarding the right to use river beds, 
reservoirs  and  lands  allocated  or  affected  by  the  implementation  of  the  2010  National 
Strategy  for  Flood  Risk  Management  (minor  and  major  river  beds,  river  banks,  lake 

basins,  buffer  areas,  reservoirs,  restorations  etc.);  the  takeover  of  lands  in  the  state’s 
public patrimony, or (on a  case by case basis) limiting / conditioning the right of use of 

third party owners / administrators is envisaged (measure at national level contained in 
all FRMPs assessed); 

47  FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 

33 

 
 
                                                 
  Legal and technical regulations for all categories of (new) construction that are built in 
potentially floodable areas or which are in any relation to the waters (measure at national 
level contained in all FRMPs assessed);  

  Periodical inspections by the Constructions State Inspectorate at an interval of maximum 
one  year  and  anytime  at  the  decision  of  the  Ministry  of  Environment,  checking  the 

legality  of  the  town  planning  certificates,  of  the  construction  permits  and  execution  of 
constructions  and  infrastructure  works  placed  in  floodplains  (measure  at  national  level 

contained in all FRMPs assessed).  

  Analysis of possibilities and technical solutions to relocate buildings and infrastructure in 
floodplains  to  increase  resilience  to  flood  risks.  Defining  plans  for  legal  solutions  and 
financing sources. (measure at national level contained in all FRMPs assessed).  

The FRMPs do not, however, provide information about how the evolution of the framework 

for land use and spatial planning has evolved since 2000. 

NWRM have been planned in  all of the five  FRMPs  assessed. All  FRMPs  assessed adopted 

the  same  water  retention  measures  at  river  basin  level,  being  listed  under  the  category  of 
protection measures.  

The  following  measures  appear  in  all  FRMPs  assessed  and  are  NWRM  related  to  forest 
management:  

  Improving forest management in flood risk areas; 

  Maintaining the surface of forests in the APSFRs’ catchment basins; 

  Development of retention areas for torrential rains. 

Some  of  the  FRMPs  give  concrete  targets  regarding  the  works  of  forest  extension  and 
development of torrent beds. 

The FRMPs present different NWRM at APSFR level. The following measures appear in all 
FRMPs assessed.  

  NWRM related to changing or adapting land use practices in forest management: 

o  Improving forest management in flood risk areas; 
o  Maintaining the surface of forests in the APSFRs’ catchment basins. 

Some FRMPs mention additional measures belonging to this category: 

o  Maintaining  forests  in  the  perimeter  of  storage  reservoirs  (all  FRMPs 

assessed except Dobrogea Litoral, RO6);  

34 

 
 
 
o  Development works for torrential catchment areas – development of torrent 

beds. (Someș-Tisa FRMP, RO9; Buzău – Ialomiţa FRMP, RO5).  

Some FRMPs assessed also list measures to restore retention areas (flood plains, wetland, etc):  

  Creation of new wetlands (seen, in the Someș-Tisa FRMP, RO9); 

  Reconnection and restoration of flood plains (Also in the Someș-Tisa FRMP and in the 

Prut-Bârlad FRMP, RO11);  

  Renaturation  of  the  banks  of  the  watercourse  (vegetative  protection),  found  in  the 

Someș-Tisa FRMP, RO9;  

  Re-meandering of water courses (Prut-Bârlad FRMP, RO11).  

All  FRMPs  list the indicators associated to  measures according to  the Catalogue of potential 

measures at national level. Indicators are developed for the NWRM measures listed above (the 
FRMPs provide a common list  and some include indicators for NWRM that  either appear in 

other  FRMPs  or  will  be  used  in  the  future).  Examples  of  NWRM  indicators  include  the 
following: 

  Measures to restore retention areas (flood plains, wetland, etc):  

o  Restoration of natural lakes: number of natural lakes restored; 

  Natural retention measures in urban / populated areas:  

o  “green”  gutters,  channels,  drainage  systems,  etc.  (RO  03  Olt):  number  of 

municipalities where the measure is applied; 

o  Collection and storage of rainwater in buried / underground reservoirs (RO 03 
Olt):  number  of  municipalities  where  the  measure  is  being  applied;  storage 
capacity (m3); 

o  Permeable  pavements,  green  roofs,  bio-retention  areas,  infiltration  channels, 
landscaped green areas (including planting of trees and shrubs for the biological 

draining  of  excess  humidity):  number  of  municipalities  where  the  measure  is 
being applied. 

  NWRM related to changing or adapting land use practices in agriculture:  

o  Maintaining  the  areas  occupied  with  meadows  and  pastures  in  floodplains: 
surface  of  areas  occupied  with  meadows  and  pastures  –  reference  year  2015 
(ha) 

o  Farming practices for soil conservation: number of areas with farming practices 
for  soil  conservation;  surface  of  areas  with  farming  practices  for  soil 

conservation (ha); 

o  Terracing  of  slopes:  number  of  terraced  areas;  surface  of  areas  covered  by 

terracing works (ha). 

35 

 
 
Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. Although the measures above for 
NWRM  can  include  nature  conservation  elements,  the  FRMPs  assessed  do  not  contain 

measures that specifically refer to nature conservation. 

All  five  FRMPs  assessed  make  a  brief  reference  indicating  that  they  shall  take  into 

consideration  navigation  and  port  infrastructure.  Only  one  measure  directly  refers  to  this 
topic,  however:  a  project  under  preparation  on  "Danube  sediment"  (contained  in  the  Danube 

FRMP, RO1000) will analyse issues related to navigation, among other things.  

No reference has been found in the five FRMPs assessed specifically to  dredging to increase 

the  river  channel  capacity  and  its  ability  to  convey  water  for  flood  alleviation  purposes. 
Nonetheless,  the  FRMPs  assessed  include  measures  to  increase  the  transiting  capacity  of  the 

river  bed  through  local  desilting  and  readjustment  works:  these  measures  may  involve 
dredging.   

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

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

mention  that  one  of  the  national  level  measures  is  the  design  of  regulations  regarding  the 
insurance system for buildings situated in potential flooding areas. The responsible institutions 

are the Insurance Supervision Commission and the Ministry of Public Finance. 

A 2008 national law (Law no. 260 of that year, recast) already requires all owners of dwellings 

(natural or legal persons) to have insurance against earthquakes, landslides and floods. The law 
has been in force since 201048.  

The FRMPs do not provide further information on insurance in Romania: for example, whether 
insurance  for  industrial  installations  and  other  potentially  polluting  sites  covers  restoration 

costs from pollution related to flooding. 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

The  FRMPs  assessed  report  that  evaluation  towards  objectives  will  be  carried  out  by 
evaluating  the  progress  in  implementing  the  proposed  measures,  based  on  quantitative  and 
qualitative  indicators.  For  each  of  these  indicators,  an  expected  value  for  year  2021  was 

established, comparing it to the reference year 2015, corresponding to the value at the start of 
the planning period, when the objective of the plan is established.  

48  https://lege5.ro/Gratuit/geydanjxgq2q/legea-nr-260-2008-privind-asigurarea-obligatorie-a-locuintelor-

impotriva-cutremurelor-alunecarilor-de-teren-si-inundatiilor?d=16.05.2018 

36 

 
 
                                                 
Indicators have been identified for all measures proposed in the FRMPs assessed, along with 
monitoring  periodicity  (controlling  the  progress  in  implementing  the  measure)  for  each 

measure, as well as the authorities responsible for monitoring.  

In total, 96 indicators have been identified at national level to monitor the accomplishment of 

measures:  

  Prevention measures: 14 indicators; 

  Protection measures: 53 indicators; 

  Public awareness measures: eight indicators; 

  Preparedness measures: six indicators; 

  Recovery and Review measures: nine indicators.  

A few examples of the most representative indicators for the assessed FRMPs include:  

  Length of watercourse with bank renaturalisation works (km);  

  Surface of forests in floodplains (ha); 

  Surface of forests in catchment basins (ha);  

  Surface of forests in reservoir perimeter areas (ha); 

  Length of corrected torrent beds (reference year 2015) – finalised works (km);  

  Length of unsilted/readjusted watercourses (km); 

  Length of relocated dams (km);  

  Number of hydrotechnical constructions;  

  Length of new dams (km);  

  Length of water courses with maintenance works (km);  

  Surface of maintained riverbeds (ha).  

A few indicators were specific only to some FRMPs:  

  Number of re-dimensioned bridges (found in the Buzău – Ialomiţa FRMP, RO5, and the 

Danube FRMP, RO1000);  

  Length of elevated dams (km) (found in the Danube FRMP, RO1000).  

The monitoring programme will involve the following activities:  

  Monitoring the general measures at national and river basin level;  

  Monitoring specific measures at APSFR level;  

  Collecting periodic information regarding the result of monitoring, elaboration of a final 
report,  explanation  of  possible  deviations  /  changes,  etc.,  as  a  basis  for  the  next  cycle 

activity (FRMP review); 

37 

 
 
Monitoring of national  measures and  general  coordination  of the monitoring will be done by 
the ministries with  competence in  flood risk management, with  yearly reporting to  the  Inter-

ministerial Council for Waters.  

Measures at river basin and APSFR levels will be monitored by the River Basin Committee of 

each UoM, with  yearly reporting to the Inter-ministerial Council for Waters. For the Danube 
FRMP,  RO1000,  measures  at  river  basin  and  APSFR  level  will  be  monitored  by  the  River 

Basin Committee of each UoM that is riparian to the Danube, with yearly reporting also to the 
Inter-ministry Council for Waters. 

As noted, for each indicator a value is  determined for 2015, the start  of the planning period: 
Consequently, Romania has established a baseline against which progress will be monitored. 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive49 

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

development of the second River Basin Management Plans of the WFD. It should be noted that 
Romania  has  reported  only  one  river  basin  district  (RBD)  under  the  WFD,  the  Danube 
(RO1000),  covering  the  whole  country,  though  Romania  has  established  sub-basins  that 

correspond to UoMs RO1 to RO11 under the FD (under the FD, the Danube UoM, RO1000, 
corresponds to the Danube strip between its banks and thus is different from the Danube RBD, 

despite the same designation).  

Table 8 

Coordination of the development of the FRMPs with the development of the 

second River Basin Management Plans of the WFD  

RO9 

RO5 

RO11 

RO6 

RO1000 

Integration of FRMP and RBMP  

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP  

Coordination between authorities responsible for 
developing FRMP and RBMP  

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

The objectives of the FD were considered in the 
preparation of the RBMPs a 

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

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

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

* 

✔ 

* 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

* 

✔ 

* 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

* 

✔ 

* 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

* 

✔ 

* 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

49 See section 4.7 of FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 

38 

 
 
 
                                                 
RO9 

RO5 

RO11 

RO6 

RO1000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

* 

* 

* 

* 

✔ 

NWRM a 

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

Natural water retention and green infrastructure 
measures have been included  

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

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

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

Other 
Notes:  a  based  on  reporting  under  the  WFD.  *  Under  the  WFD,  Romania  reported  only  one 
RBD (the Danube, RO1000), whose territory covers the whole country (in contrast, Romania 

has  reported  12  UoMs  under  the  FD  and  the  Danube  UoM  only  covers  the  Danube  River’s 
banks). 

For  four  FRMPs  assessed  (corresponding  to  UoMs  RO9,  RO5,  RO11  and  RO6),  the 
development of the FRMPs has been coordinated with the development of the sub-basin River 

Management  Plans,  prepared  in  parallel  (the  sub-basin  plans  were  prepared  for  the  same 
territories as the UoMs). The only difference across the FRMPs assessed is a small variation in 

terms of the measures taken under both the FD and the WFD.  

Romanian  Waters  is  the  state  authority  that  has  the  responsibility  of  implementing  both  the 

WFD and FD. Among the main responsibilities of Romanian Waters are both the development 
of  River  Basin  Management  Plans  and  of  FRMPs,  based  on  FHRMs  done  for  flood  prone 

areas. As such, Romanian Waters organised a joint consultation of draft FRMPs and RBMPs at 
national and river basin level (see section 7).  

As noted in section 3, the environmental objectives of the WFD are integrated into Romania’s 
common FRMP objectives (see section 3). Also, the prioritisation of measures in the FRMPs 

included an assessment of their “support to achieve and conserve GES / GEP…”.  

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  WFD  was  also  considered  in  the  methodological  recommendations  in  defining  FRMP 
measures:  

  Special  attention  was  given  to  non-structural  measures,  following  EU  guidelines  and 
recommendations. Out of 23 types of measures, 22 are non-structural or light structural 
(only one structural type of measure involves hard engineering works). 

  Regarding  non-structural  measures,  although  the  initial  recommendation  was  to  apply 
them  at  APSFR  level,  in  order  to  significantly  improve  flood  risk  management,  the 

current recommendation is to apply them on a large scale at the level of the river basin or 
sub-basin. 

  The measures proposed in the Catalogue of potential common measures for both FRMPs 
and RBMPs are those for flood risk protection. Application of these measures is done at 

the APSFR and/or river basin level. 

Moreover,  all  FRMPs  assessed  present  NWRM  related  to  changing  or  adapting  land  use 

practices  in  forest  management,  as  described  above  and  some  FRMPs  also  list  measures  to 
restore retention areas such as floodplains and wetlands. One FRMP assessed, RO9, also lists a 

measure for dam relocation, taken under both the FD and WFD. Indeed, many of the NWRM 
and  other  measures  indicated  in  the  FRMPs  are  common  measures  for  both  FRMPs  and 

RBMPs.  In  total,  across  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  there  are  103  common  measures  in  the 
Someș-Tisa FRMP (RO9), 32 in the  Buzău –  Ialomiţa FRMP (RO5), 59 in the Prut - Bârlad 

FRMP (RO11) and 15 in the Dobrogea – Litoral FRMP (RO6). RO1000 Danube does not list 
any common measures, for the reasons explained above. 

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  In  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  all  measures  at  the  APSFR  level  are  specific  and 
measurable,  while  some  of  the  UoM-level  measures  are  specific  as  well  –  for  many 
measures, specific locations are identified; 

  All the FRMPs assessed establish a process for monitoring the progress of their measures 
and identify indicators for this process, including quantitative baselines and targets.  

  The  FRMPs  assessed  include  measures  that  address  spatial  planning  and  natural  water 

retention.  

  Special attention was given to non-structural measures. Out of 23 types of measures, 22 
are  non-structural  or  light  structural  (only  one  structural  measure  involves  hard 

engineering works);  

40 

 
 
  Romania’s  FRMPs  and  RBMPs  were  prepared  in  close  coordination,  including  in  the 

assessment of measures in terms of the achievement of WFD objectives.  

The following areas for further development were identified:  

  All  FRMPs  assessed  lacked  a  description  of  how  much  the  measures  contribute  to  the 
achievement of objectives and do not contain a description of whether the objectives will 
be met when all measures are implemented50; 

  There  is  no  budget  provided  for  the  implementation  of  measures;  although  there  are 

indications of funding sources, clear details are not provided; 

50  Romania recalled subsequently that this was optional reporting. 

41 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.   Consideration of climate change 

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change 

The  five  FRMPs  assessed  contain  identical  measures  that  are  indicated  as  related  to  climate 
change. The following measure will be taken at national level51: Studies to estimate the impact 
of climate change on the regime of maximal debits of water courses. The following measure 
will  be  taken  at  both  national  and  at  river  basin  level52:  update  of  the  FHRMs,  including: 
consideration  of  flash  floods  (pluvial  floods),  other  flood  producing  mechanisms  and  the 

effects of climate change.  

The  following  measures  will  be  taken  at  river  basin  level53:  Adapting  construction, 
infrastructure and existing flood defence systems for climate change impacts, recalculating the 
levels  of protection of the current  flood projection system, including the reservoir’s spillway 

capacity  and  optimising  the  exploitation  of  reservoirs  to  increase  the  retention  /  attenuation 
capacity; 

The  following  type  of  measures  will  be  taken  at  APSFR  level54:  adapting  construction, 
infrastructure  and  existing  defence  systems  for  climate  change  conditions,  elevating  existing 

dams and defence works. 

While  Romania  has  identified  NWRM  as  well  as  measures  related  to  land  use  and  spatial 

planning, the FRMPs assessed do not specify if climate change was taken into consideration in 
the identification and planning of these measures. 

The five FRMPs do not contain references to the national climate adaptation strategy (which in 
Romania is integrated into the national Climate Change Strategy 2013 – 2020). 

The  FRMPs  assessed  do  not  provide  information  about  the  timeframes  considered  for  the 
climate  change  scenarios.  There  is  also  no  reference  to  possible  shifts  in  the  occurrence  of 

extreme  events,  changes  in  numerical  recurrence  times  or  changes  in  the  main  sources  of 
flooding.55  

5.2  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following good practice was identified: 

51  See section 4.1 of FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 
52  See section 4.3 of FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 
53  See section 4.3 of FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 
54  See section 4.5 of FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 
55  FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 

42 

 
 
                                                 
  All  the FRMPs assessed include measures  to  address  climate  change, including studies 

for future action.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The  FRMPs  assessed  do  not  provide  an  overview  of  potential  climate  impacts  (except 
FRMP for RO9 Somes Tisa), nor refer to Romania’s National Climate Change Strategy. 

43 

 
 
 
 
6. Cost-benefit analysis 

The  five  FRMPs  assessed  refer  to  cost  benefit  analysis  as  one  of  the  criteria  for  the 

establishment  of  priorities  for  the  selection  of  measures.  Measures  have  been  prioritised  by 
assessing  the  benefit  of  each  measure  to  the  nine  flood  risk  management  objectives.  The 

methodology  is  based  on  multi-criteria  analysis  with  cost-benefit  elements.  The  priority  of 
each  measure  was  quantified  depending  on  the  value  of  the  benefit  /  cost  ratio56.  Further 
details, including the results of the analysis, were not found in the FRMPs assessed. 

The multi-criteria analysis with cost-benefit elements was used for most measures at APSFR 

level.  However,  the  analysis  was  not  undertaken  for  all  the  non-structural  measures  that  had 
been  deemed  necessary  for  the  flood  risk  management  at  the  start  of  preparations  for  the 

FRMPs.  The  analysis  was  not  applied  to  national  and  river  basin  level  measures,  nor  to 
measures  at  the  APSFR  level  which  have  a  major  environmental  benefit,  those  being 

considered high priority from the start.  

As  noted  above,  benefits  were  assessed  in  terms  of  Romania’s  nine  flood  risk  management 

objectives;  three  of  the  nine  objectives  refer  to  the  WFD’s  objectives  and  provisions: 
consequently, the analysis considered benefits for the WFD. No information was found in the 
FRMPs  assessed,  or  online,  indicating  whether  the  method  considered  other  multi-benefits57. 
No information could be found if the cost / benefit analysis was used to assess measures with 
transnational effects58.  

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The  FRMPs  assessed  indicate  that  a  prioritisation  methodology  based  on  multi-criteria 

analysis with cost-benefit elements was used. 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Details on the results of the analysis were not found in the FRMPs assessed. 

56  See section 4.4 FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 
57  FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 
58  FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 

44 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

According  to  the  information  reported  initially  by  Romania  in  May  2010,  the  competent 
authorities  for  the  Flood  Directive  are  the  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Forests  and  the 
National  Administration  Romanian  Waters59.  Romania  has  not  reported  new  information  to 
WISE since 2010.  

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 section: 

Table 9 

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

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking  

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

Other *  

RO9 
✔ 

RO5 
✔ 

RO11 
✔ 

RO6 
✔ 

RO1000 
✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Notes: * for Romania, ‘Other’ includes the production of a documentary film  

The consultation process was carried at several levels:  

  national level (national coverage, including at central level); 

  river  basin  level  (at  the  level  of  the  hydrographic  basins  and  the  River  Basin 

Committees),  

  local and county level (at the level of counties, communes, localities that can be subject 

to risk and can be affected by negative effects of floods).  

The  consultation  process  for  the  RO1000  FRMP  at  the  river  basin  level  was  carried  out 

through  the  River  Basin  Administrations  of  the  seven  UoMs  that  are  riparian  to  the  river 

59http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/Converters/run_conversion?file=ro/eu/fdart3/envsy7cw/RO_CAUoM_20100521.xml

&conv=238&source=remote  

45 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Danube.  Otherwise,  the  consultation  process  was  very  similar  across  the  UoMs,  with  few 
differences.  

1. Nation-wide actions, including at the central level, consisted of: 

o  Drafting the Communication Plan for FRMPs;  
o  Meetings with academia;  
o  Distribution in mass media (radio, press);  
o  Organisation of debates;  
o  Presentations at conferences;  
o  Dissemination  of  questionnaires  and  newsletters  to  stakeholders  –  6  000  copies  of 
brochures  containing  the  FRMPs'  proposed  objectives  and  the  catalogue  of  measures 

were sent to stakeholders, 500 copies for each river basin and 500 copies in Bucharest 
and at national level; 

o  Dissemination of printed material (catalogue of measures, flyers);  
o  Posting of relevant information/materials on the websites of the Romanian Waters, the 
River  Basin  Administrations,  The  National  Institute  for  Hydrology  and  Water 
Management;  

o  Production and broadcast on the national TV channel TVR1 of a documentary, “Water 
and Technology serving people” (four episodes), dedicated to flood risk management, 

the  FHRM,  the  catalogue  of  potential  measures,  the  FRMPs  and  national  relevant 
projects. The documentary was broadcast in November 2015. 

2. Actions at the UoM level consisted of: 

o  Drafting the Communication Plan for river basin level FRMPs;  
o  Presentations at conferences, meetings, especially organised at the level of River Basin 

Committees; 

o  Dissemination of questionnaires and newsletters to stakeholders;  
o  Organisation  of  information  points  at  the  headquarters  of  the  local  authorities  and  in 

schools;  

o  Posting of relevant information/materials on the website;  
o  Sending press releases to the media.  

3. The FRMPs indicate the following actions at local and county level (specifically, counties, 

communes  and  municipalities  that  are  subject  to  flood  risks)  that  were  information  and 
consultation activities:  
o  County  Councils,  prefectures  and  local  authorities  were  randomly  checked  whether 
they are aware of their flood risk responsibilities. The stage of FHRM integration in the 
county and local level urbanism and land use plans was checked as well. 

46 

 
 
o  All  counties  participated  in  the  yearly  programme  that  verifies  the  way  watercourses 
have  been  cleaned,  how  ditches  and  gutters  are  maintained  by  municipalities  and 

localities facing flood risk, to ensure drainage sectors of large watercourses.  

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

Table 10 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet  

Digital social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

Postal written comments 

Sending newsletters and questionnaires to identify 
stakeholders 

RO9 
✔ 

RO5 
✔ 

RO11 
✔ 

RO6 
✔ 

RO1000 
✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

Workshops  were  organised  to  involve  stakeholders  outside  the  specialist  groups.  Public 

consultation  was carried out  via internet  or in  public meetings. As noted above, stakeholders 
were  sent  questionnaires  to  complete.  There  were  two  questionnaires  elaborated  at  national 
level and distributed regionally in the river basins, to selected regional stakeholders60. During 
dedicated  meetings,  their  opinion  was  also  directly  asked  on  different  aspects  related  to 
FRMPs, especially the catalogue of measures61. 

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

60  Questionnaire no. 1 is annexed to all FRMPs assessed. 
61  See chapter 6 of FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 11 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  

Direct mailing (post)  

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 

Paper copies disseminated to stakeholders 

Source: FRMPs 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The relevant documents were posted on the webpages of the Romanian Waters Administration, 

the  River  Basins  Administrations  and  of  the  National  Institute  for  Hydrology  and  Water 
Management.  Stakeholders  were  sent  electronic  newsletters  and  questionnaires;  which 
stakeholders were requested to complete62. 

7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

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

Table 12 

Groups of stakeholders actively involved in the development of the FRMPs 

All UoMs assessed 

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

Flood Warning / Defence Authorities  

Drainage Authorities  

Emergency services  

Water supply and sanitation  

Agriculture / farmers  

Energy / hydropower  

Navigation / ports  

Fisheries / aquaculture  

Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) 

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

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  

Academia / Research Institutions  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Notes:  *  ‘Other’  in  Romania  includes:  Ministry  of  Finance,  Ministry  of  Economy,  Forestry 
Directorates,  transportation  authorities,  land  use  authorities,  health  authorities,  education 

62  See chapter 6 of FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 

48 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
authorities and consumer protection agencies. 

Most  of  the  stakeholders  were  public  authorities,  either  at  central  or  regional/local  level. 

Research  and  academia,  but  also  a  few  NGOs  and  state-owned  companies  (e.g.  the  hydro-
power  company),  mass  media,  schools,  the  church,  citizens  living  in  flood  prone  areas  were 
involved as well. There is no information on the total number of stakeholders participating63. 
The number of meetings with the public authorities listed is much higher than with the other 

stakeholders. Most of the meetings listed occurred within the River Basin Committees and the 
Inter-Ministerial Water Council. 

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

Table 13 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders  

RO9 

RO5 

RO11 

RO6 

RO1000 

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory groups  

Involvement in drafting  

Workshops and technical meetings 

Formation of alliances  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

All  stakeholders  were  sent  electronic  questionnaires  which  stakeholders  were  required  to  fill 
in.  During dedicated meetings at  national  and  regional levels,  their  opinion was  also  directly 
asked on different aspects related to FRMPs, especially the catalogue of measures64. 

Within  the  national  government,  the  FRMPs  were  discussed  and  endorsed  within  the  Inter-

ministerial  Water  Council,  a  consultative  body  without  legal  status  that  functions  along  the 
national  water  authority.  It  is  composed  of  representatives  of  national  authorities  that  have 

responsibilities in  the field  of flood risk management. The Council coordinates and  endorses 
policies and strategies in field of water management and flood risk management to achieve an 

integrated and sustainable approach. 

The  FRMPs  were  discussed  and  endorsed  in  the  River  Basin  Committee  for  each  UoM: 

Romania’s  River Basin  Committees are  composed of representatives of  regional,  county  and 
local public authorities as well as other relevant stakeholders that have responsibilities in the 

field of water management: NGOs and water users associations located in the river basin. The 
responsibilities of the River Basin Committees related to flood risk management include:  

63  See Chapter 6 of FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 
64  See chapter 6 of FRMP RO1000; FRMP R09; FRMP RO5; FRMP RO11 and FRMP R06. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  to  recommend  to  local  authorities  methods  of  ensuring  financial  resources  from  local 

budgets; 

  to  participate in  decisions regarding the creation  and use of the dedicated Fund  for the 

equipment and maintenance of flood defence works; 

  to endorse the FHRM and the FRMPs.  

7.4 

Effects of consultation 

The FRMPs provide no information about how the involvement of stakeholders led to changes 
in the content of FRMPs65. 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

Neither  the  FRMPs  nor  the  reporting  sheets  provide  information  on  Strategic  Environmental 

Assessment of the FRMPs.  

Nonetheless,  according  to  a  draft  decision  posted  by  the  Ministry  of  Environment,  all  of 

Romania’  FRMPs  underwent  a  Strategic  Environmental  Assessment  procedure,  specifically 
the  initial  screening  phase  (a  final  decision  was  not  found  online).  The  decision  taken 

following  the  screening  phase  was  that  the  FRMPs  did  not  need  further  environmental 
evaluation. The decision also stated that projects necessary to implement the FRMPs’ measures 
should be analysed via EIA procedures66. 

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practices were identified: 

  For  all  FRMPs  assessed  and  also  at  national  level,  Romania  used  a  range  of 
communication  tools  and  consultation  mechanisms  to  inform  and  engage  stakeholders 
and  the  public  through  the  different  phases  of  the  planning  process,  including  a 

documentary film, a survey and direct contacts with local authorities; 

  Stakeholders  were  engaged  via  workshops  and  technical  meetings  in  all  five  RBMPs 

assessed and via the River Basin Committees.  

The following areas for further development were identified: 

65  Romania  subsequently  informed  that  in  the  process  of  the  FRMPs’  approval  by  Government  Decision, 
comments  were  received  and  were  integrated  in  the  Plans  and  were  reportedly  shared  with  the  European 
Commission in February 2017. 

66  Website of the Ministry of Environment:  

http://www.mmediu.ro/articol/planul-de-management-al-riscului-la-inundatii-sinteza-nationala/1527; 
http://www.mmediu.ro/app/webroot/uploads/files/2016-05-17_DECIZIA_etapei_de_incadrare_la_PNMRI.pdf 

50 

 
 
                                                 
 
  The FRMPs do not include a description of how the consultation results were considered 
in the final drafting of the plan and the effects of the consultation are not summarised in 
the FRMPs. 

  It  appears that the main stakeholders that were actively involved were largely from the 
public sector (as opposed to stakeholders from NGOs, the private sector and citizens). 

51 

 
 
 
 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

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

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

Background & method 

This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans 

(FRMPs). The tables and charts below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the 
Member States and were used by the Member State assessor to complete the questions on the 

Flood measures. The data are extracted from the XMLs (reporting sheets) reported by Member 
States  for each FRMP, and are split into the following sections: 

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

  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; 

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

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

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

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

  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts.  

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the FD)67, not all fields are 
mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States  reported information for all fields.  

Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers  – for example, 
progress  is  measured  via  the  categories  set  out  in  the  Reporting  Guidance.  This  means  that 
producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort.  For many fields, however, a 

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

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

  A  first  filter  is  applied  to  identify  how  many  different  answers  were  given.  If  a  high 
number of different answers are given, Member States  assessors were asked to refer to 

the  raw  data  when  conducting  the  assessment,  and  this  Annex  does  not  reflect  these 
observations. 

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

data sorted. 

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

52 

 
 
                                                 
  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 table68 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 

M22: Removal or relocation 

M23: Reduction 
M24: Other prevention 

PROTECTION 
M31: Natural flood management 

M32: Flow regulation 
M33: Coastal and floodplain works 

M34: Surface Water Management 
M35: other protection 

PREPAREDNESS 
M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning 
M42: Emergency response planning 

M43: Public Awareness 

M44: Other preparedness 

RECOVERY & REVIEW 
M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery 

M52: Environmental recovery 

M53: Other recovery  

OTHER MEASURES 
M61: Other measures 

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

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

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
List of tables & figures 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ........... 58 
Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect ............. 58 
Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Location of implementation by measure aspect ....... 59 
Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Location of implementation by UoM ....................... 60 
Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ........ 62 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Progress of implementation by UoM ........................ 63 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ....................................................................................... 55 
Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM .................................. 55 
Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM ................................. 56 
Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM
.................................................................................................................................................... 57 
Table A5 - Location of implementation by measure aspect ...................................................... 59 
Table A6 - Location of implementation by UoM ...................................................................... 60 
Table A7 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect ...................................................... 62 
Table A8 – Progress of implementation by UoM ...................................................................... 63 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
Measures overview 

Table A1 - Total number of measures 

Number of individual measures 

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

Number of aggregated measures  

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

Total number of measures  

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

Range of number of measures between UoMs  

(Min- Max) 

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

2 347 

2 347 

791 

791 

3 138 

3 138 

82 – 441 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

M23 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

M35 

M41 

M44 

Recovery 
& Review 

Other 

Grand 
Total 

RO1 

RO2 

RO3 

RO4 

RO5 

RO6 

RO7 

RO8 

RO9 

RO10 

RO11 

RO1000 

4 

65 

40 

68 

72 

34 

14 

99 

92 

98 

95 

58 

4 

1 

1 

1 

4 

3 

2 

9 

1 

3 

6 

66 

25 

49 

58 

30 

17 

83 

89 

21 

166 

21 

6 

1 

2 

1 

12 

96 

56 

64 

55 

24 

10 

85 

169 

73 

90 

121 

51 

1 

4 

5 

4 

3 

3 

12 

55 

229 

123 

186 

189 

91 

41 

269 

366 

210 

357 

209 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Grand 
Total 
Average 
per UoM 

4 

<1 

739 

62 

31 

3 

631 

53 

32 

3 

894 

75 

12 

1 

4 

<1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 347 

196 

Notes:  The  codes  used  are  explained  in  the  previous  section  of  this  Annex.  No  individual  measures  were  reported  for  Recovery  &  Review  or 
Other.  

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

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

M21 

M24 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M35 

M41 

M42 

M43 

M44 

M51 

M52 

M53 

Other 

Grand 
Total 

RO1 

RO2 

RO3 

RO4 

RO5 

RO6 

RO7 

RO8 

RO9 

RO10 

RO11 

RO1000 

Grand 
Total 

Average 
per UoM 

10 

10 

9 

9 

10 

10 

9 

9 

9 

10 

10 

10 

3 

3 

6 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

8 

3 

3 

3 

3 

52 

10 

20 

1 

19 

44 

25 

37 

7 

1 

2 

1 

13 

21 

12 

115 

44 

57 

211 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

7 

<1 

10 

4 

5 

18 

3 

3 

16 

4 

7 

3 

3 

7 

16 

4 

9 

3 

78 

7 

2 

2 

2 

2 

4 

2 

2 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

27 

96 

84 

24 

12 

12 

24 

2 

8 

7 

2 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0 

42 

39 

114 

51 

67 

41 

39 

75 

123 

65 

95 

40 

791 

66 

Notes: The codes used are explained in the previous section of this Annex. No aggregated measures were reported for Other.  

56 

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

Prevention 

Total 

Protection 

Total 

Preparedness 

Total 

Aggregated 

Individual 

Aggregated 

Individual 

Aggregated 

Individual 

Recovery & 
review 
Aggregated 

Total 

Other 

Grand 
Total 

RO1 

RO2 

RO3 

RO4 

RO5 

RO6 

RO7 

RO8 

RO9 

RO10 

RO11 

RO1000 

Grand 
Total 

Average 
per UoM 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

11 

11 

122 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

11 

15 

9 

6 

81 

18 

32 

8 

6 

42 

89 

32 

61 

6 

229 

122 

186 

189 

91 

41 

269 

364 

197 

357 

209 

73 

238 

128 

267 

207 

123 

49 

275 

406 

286 

389 

270 

79 

19 

19 

19 

19 

21 

19 

19 

19 

20 

19 

19 

19 

126 

390 

2 327 

2717 

231 

4 

4 

<1 

11 

33 

194 

226 

19 

19 

20 

19 

19 

21 

19 

19 

21 

33 

19 

19 

19 

247 

21 

1 

2 

13 

16 

1 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

48 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

271 

162 

300 

240 

158 

82 

308 

441 

333 

422 

304 

117 

48 

4 

0 

0 

3 138 

262 

Notes: The codes used are explained in the previous section of this Annex. No measures were reported for Other. No individual measures were 
reported for Recovery & Review 

57 

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

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

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

Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

  Cost explanation (optional field). 

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

58 

 
 
 
 
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). 

Romania provided information about the location of all measures. 

Table A5 - Location of implementation by measure aspect 

Preparedness 

Prevention 

Protection 

Recovery & 
Review 
Grand Total 

APSFR 

19 

2 572 

2 591 

UoM 

National 

Grand Total 

108 

53 

145 

36 

342 

120 

73 

12 

205 

247 

126 

2 717 

48 

3 138 

Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Location of implementation by measure aspect 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A6 - Location of implementation by UoM 

RO1 

RO10 

RO1000 

RO11 

RO2 

RO3 

RO4 

RO5 

RO6 

RO7 

RO8 

RO9 

APSFR 

232 

383 

264 

123 

261 

201 

119 

43 

269 

402 

294 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

2 591 

216 

UoM 

22 

22 

100 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

342 

29 

National 

Grand Total 

17 

17 

17 

18 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

205 

17 

271 

422 

117 

304 

162 

300 

240 

158 

82 

308 

441 

333 

3 138 

262 

Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Location of implementation by UoM 

Geographic coverage 

No information reported in the reporting sheets.  

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

in the textual part of the XML); 

60 

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

is required); 

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

required). 

Objectives 

Romania  did  not  provide  information  about  the  objectives  of  the  measures  in  the  reporting 

sheets. 

Category of priority 

Romania  did  not  provide  information  about  the  category  of  priority  of  the  measures  in  the 

reporting sheets. 

Timetable 

Romania reported the same timetable for all measures in the reporting sheets: January 2016  - 

December 2021. 

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).  

Romania  provided  the  names  of  the  responsible  authority  for  all  measures  in  the  reporting 

sheets. However, this was an open question and a large variety of responses was provided, thus 
it was not possible to aggregate the data.  

Romania did not provide information about the level of responsibility of the authorities in the 
reporting sheets. 

Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

whose responses are analysed below; 

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

analysed here. 

61 

 
 
Romania  reported  information  about  the  progress  of  implementation  of  the  measures.  The 
Progress of implementation was reported as69:  

  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 A7 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Progress ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

Ongoing 
construction 

115 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

4 

1 854 

3 

Grand Total 

1 861 
Notes: No measures were reported as completed 

115 

122 

748 

244 

48 

1 162 

126 

2 717 

247 

48 

3 138 

Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Notes: No measures were reported as completed 

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

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

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Progress ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

Table A8 – Progress of implementation by UoM 

RO1 

RO2 

RO3 

RO4 

RO5 

RO6 

RO7 

RO8 

RO9 

RO10 

RO11 

RO1000 

Ongoing 
construction 
7 

2 

5 

10 

4 

5 

7 

30 

25 

10 

1 

9 

89 

40 

179 

177 

71 

14 

250 

229 

190 

349 

205 

68 

Grand Total 

115 

1 861 

Average per UoM 

155 
Notes: No measures were reported as completed 

10 

175 

120 

116 

53 

83 

63 

51 

182 

118 

63 

98 

40 

1 162 

97 

271 

162 

300 

240 

158 

82 

308 

441 

333 

422 

304 

117 

3 138 

262 

Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Progress of implementation by UoM 

Notes: No measures were reported as completed 

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

Document on the FD. 

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 

63 

 
 
 
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. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 

  Completed (COM) means an advisory service that has been implemented and has been 
finalised, i.e. is no longer operational. This is expected only for advisory services that 

are relatively short term  or one-off, and which duration is  time limited in relation  to 
the whole RBMP. 

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

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

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

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

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 

  Completed (COM) means  the research, investigation  or study has been finalised and 
has been delivered, i.e. the results or deliverables are available (report, model, etc.). 

For  measures 

involving  administrative  acts  (e.g. 

licenses,  permits,  regulations, 

instructions, etc.): 

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

been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

  Progress on-going (POG) means an administrative file has been opened and at least a 
first  administrative action has been taken (e.g. requirement to  an operator to  provide 

information  to  renew  the  licensing,  request  of  a  permit  by  an  operator,  internal 

64 

 
 
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). 

Romania provided ‘other information’ for the majority of the measures in the reporting sheets. 

However, as this was an open question the responses given varied greatly and aggregation of 
the data was not possible.  

Romania did not report information about ‘other Community Acts’ in the reporting sheets. 

65 

 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures70 

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 action 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 

M43 

M44 

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

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

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

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

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

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

66 

 
 
                                                 
 
Recovery & Review 

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

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

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

Other 

Other 

M51 

M52 

M53 

M61 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures  

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

project  represents  a  comprehensive  but  non  prescriptive  wide  range  of  measures;  other 
measures, or similar measures called by a different name, could also be classified as NWRM.  

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

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

Table B2 

List of NWRM 

Agriculture 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

F02 Maintenance of forest 
cover in headwater areas 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

A03 Crop rotation 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U03 Permeable surfaces 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

U05 Channels and rills 

U06 Filter Strips 

A07 Low till agriculture 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 

U07 Soakaways 

67 

 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

A08 Green cover 

A09 Early sowing 

A10 Traditional 
terracing 

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

A13 Mulching 

F08 Appropriate design of 
roads and stream 
crossings 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

F11 Urban forest parks 

Hydro Morphology 
features 

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation 

Urban 

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches 

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

U09 Rain Gardens 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

N12 Lake restoration 

U12 Infiltration basins 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

68